Results 1 to 5 of 5
04-08-2009, 03:42 PM #1
Here's another example of a well-known Indian company adopting the Indian domain extension.
Mahindra Retail, which owns 'Mom and Me' stores in India, own the website MomAndMe.in. The company was smart enough to also register the .co.in (currently, it doesn't resolve or redirect to the .in site).
Mom&Me offers information on pregnancy, infants, toddlers and older kids. I can't see that the website sells any merchandise, but I wonder if this will change in the future.
There's no 'Dad and Me' but there's a section on the site called Dad's Zone. You can even find parenting quotes and jokes.
I assume that in India they use the American spelling for the word 'mom' and not the British spelling (ie mum) - is that right?
04-09-2009, 05:29 PM #2
When you pointed out that momandme is the American spelling, I looked up mumandme, the British spelling. When I looked it up on Mitsu yesterday it was available for sale. The problem is, even though it is one letter off the momandme name, the momandme company has the inside track to scoop it away from you if they desire. Close misspellings can be takenn away by commercial companies (if I'm not mistaken--correct me if I'm wrong).
04-09-2009, 06:58 PM #3
That's also my understanding. The misspelling of a trademarked term can be taken away if it's confusing similar to the mark, or there's a likelihood of confusion as to the source of a product/service sold.
04-09-2009, 07:21 PM #4
Here's a case where a small spelling difference was at issue. There's also a second issue, laches. Laches means a significant amount of time has passed and the issue wasn't cleared up so the issue stands. In other words, you didn't sue me for a long time, so I can continue to do the thing and you're too late to change me.
Can a domain owner claim a laches defense in a TM Case?
A U.S District Court of Appeals recently decided that a plaintiff’s six-year delay in filing a claim for trademark infringement was not unfair and should not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a lawsuit against the defendant. In 1996, the plaintiff launched a business to provide DSL and dial-up Internet Services in Northern California. The plaintiff registered the domain is-west.com to promote its business. In 1998, the defendant started his own business which also offered dial-up Internet Services in the same Northern California market. The defendant registered the domain ispwest.com in connection with his business. In 2005, the defendant expanded his business to include a DSL service making his business even more similar to the plaintiffs. Shortly after the defendant expanded his business, the plaintiff sued the defendant for trademark infringement because it believed that the defendant’s domain name was similar to their own.
The defendant argued that by waiting six years to sue, the plaintiff’s actions were unfair and should prevent the plaintiff from bringing the lawsuit. The Court agreed that the plaintiff’s delay was unreasonable but held that it was not necessarily unfair. The Court stated that the plaintiff should have sued in 1998 since the companies offered comparable services in the same geographical area under a similar name. However, the Court also noted that the delay was not so unfair as to prevent the plaintiff from suing six years later. In order to show that the delay was unfair, the defendant domain owner had to prove that its expenses focused on brand promotion in the trademark ISPWest. If the defendant could have shown that he spent a large sum of money in promoting his business under the ISPWest mark, then the six year delay could potentially be unfair. Since the defendant’s expenses went to the expansion of his customer base and technology instead of associating his company with the ISPWest mark, the Court did not see the six year delay as unfair and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
04-09-2009, 08:16 PM #5
Interesting case! The defence of laches is also used in India. From what I understand, the defendant must show that the delay has caused them prejudice, otherwise the defence will fail.