WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. performed visitors cop. Justice Clarence Thomas requested his first questions in additional than a y
WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. performed visitors cop. Justice Clarence Thomas requested his first questions in additional than a yr. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disappeared for just a few moments, apparently having did not unmute her telephone.
On the entire, the Supreme Courtroom’s first argument held by phone went easily, with the justices asking quick bursts of fast questions, one after the other, so as of seniority, because the world, additionally for the primary time, listened in.
The argument on Monday morning started with the standard chant, “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!,” stated by Pamela Talkin, the marshal of the courtroom. However that was nearly the one conventional factor about it.
Chief Justice Roberts requested the primary questions after which known as on his colleagues. When legal professionals gave prolonged solutions, he lower them off and recognized the following justice whose flip it was to ask questions.
The problem earlier than the courtroom was whether or not a web based lodge reservation firm, Reserving.com, could trademark its title. Generic phrases can’t be trademarked, and all involved agreed that “reserving,” standing alone, was generic. The query for the justices was whether or not the addition of “.com” modified the evaluation.
A number of of the justices instructed that the reply was sure. Justice Thomas requested how an web area title differed from an 800 telephone quantity, noting that 1-800-PLUMBING is a registered trademark.
Different justices pursued his level.
“You possibly can have a trademark that’s a phone quantity,” stated Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “So why can’t you will have a trademark that’s a ‘.com’?”
An official of the Patent and Trademark Workplace rejected Reserving.com’s utility, and the Trademark Trial and Enchantment Board affirmed that call, saying the proposed trademark was generic. “Related prospects,” the board stated, “would perceive the time period Reserving.com to discuss with a web based reservation service.”
A federal trial decide disagreed, ruling that the addition of “.com” to a generic time period reworked it into “a descriptive mark eligible for defense.” A divided three-judge panel of america Courtroom of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., affirmed that ruling.
Erica L. Ross, a lawyer for the federal government, said that decision meant that Booking.com must lose. “Dot com is simply the online version of ‘company,’” she said.
“What respondent wants here,” she said, referring to the company, “is something it couldn’t get in the brick and mortar world.”
But Chief Justice Roberts said Booking.com was not a generic term, one describing what he called “a category of goods or services.”
“When you talk about other companies in that category, whether it’s Travelocity, Priceline or whatever, nobody refers to those as ‘Booking.coms,’” the chief justice said.
Lisa S. Blatt, a lawyer for Booking.com, argued that the Lanham Act, a 1946 law that codified trademark protections, repudiated the 1888 decision.
Chief Justice Roberts seemed sympathetic to that position. “It makes more sense to follow the language Congress chose in the statute,” he told Ms. Ross, “rather than a 130-year-old case of ours.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that was only a partial answer, as the 1946 law predated the digital era. “You are seeking,” he told Ms. Blatt, “a degree of monopoly power that no one could have had prior to the internet age.”
“I take it a company could not have registered ‘Booking Company,’ but because of the internet, you have Booking.com, which gives you an advantage over other companies that are in that business,” Justice Alito said. “And now you want to get even more advantage by getting trademark protection for that.”
Several other justices also asked about the possible harm to competition. Ms. Blatt said the concern was misplaced. “The notion that anyone is being crowded out is just silly,” she said.
Ms. Blatt said there were plenty of authentically generic domain names, reflecting on life during the pandemic. “I have searched every grocerystore.com looking for toilet paper,” she said. “I have now started looking at every hardware.com. I am using fooddelivery.com for all of my takeouts these days. Those are generic usages of a ‘generic-word.com.’”
Justice Breyer appeared unpersuaded. “You don’t have to worry about searching the internet for toilet paper from grocerystores.com,” he said. “There will only be one. Grocerystores.com will recognize one and only one. There will be pizza.com, there will be cookies.com, there will be flowers.com, etc.”
“Seeking a date?” the brief asked. “Try Dating.com. Want to impress with concert tickets? Tickets.com or Concert.com can get them. Hoping for nice weather? Check Weather.com. Looking for the perfect dinner spot? Restaurant.com offers deals. Booking a flight to meet the parents? Flights.com can help.”
The passage went on in this way, listing more than a dozen other examples.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed concerned by the list. “How many already-registered marks would be subject to cancellation?” she asked Ms. Ross, who did not offer a direct response.
Supreme Court arguments typically last an hour. But Monday’s session went over by about 15 minutes, a consequence of the new format.