The USPTO, among others, suggested that allowing Booking.com to claim the trademark would harm other travel companies with the word “booking” in their domain names. Federal trademark law defines generic terms as those that don’t make a service or product distinct from other ones. It prevents companies from staking an exclusive claim to commonly used words such as “tailor” or “laundromat” in store names.

Booking.com claimed that people associate its brand with reservations and that denying its trademark application could lead to consumers becoming misled. In writing the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with the company, suggesting that public perception of a name is the core issue. 

“[If] Booking.com were generic, we might expect consumers to understand Travelocity — another such service — to be a Booking.com,” Ginsburg wrote. “We might similarly expect that a consumer, searching for a trusted source of online hotel-reservation services, could ask a frequent traveler to name her favorite Booking.com provider.”

“Because Booking.com is not a generic name to consumers, it is not generic,” Ginsburg determined. The court ruled 8-1 in favor of Booking.com, with Justice Stephen Breyer dissenting. The decision paves the way for other companies with generic terms in their domain names to trademark them.

The case was the first one for which the court used a teleconference system for oral arguments, with justices working remotely due to COVID-19 prevention measures. Those arguments were also the court’s first to be livestreamed.

On top of this, James has sent letters to GoDaddy and five other internet registrars asking them to halt the registration of domain names for virus-related scams, and to delist those names that are already in use. While this wasn’t an order, the Attorney General warned that these sites are likely to be violating “multiple laws” in addition to terms of service.

We’ve asked Craigslist and GoDaddy for comment.

It won’t be surprising if the companies step up their actions in response, if they haven’t already. Even if they aren’t compelled in terms of public interest, the threats of legal action and negative public perception might tip the balance. Whatever the motivations, the crackdown could prove vital if it saves people from wasting money and exposing themselves to the virus.