<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://tictank.pt]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[TICtank]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://tictank.pt/author/tictank/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Pode um &#8220;.com&#8221; ser uma&nbsp;marca?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>O caso da Booking.com teve uma <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-46.html">audição a 4 de Maio</a>.</p>
<p>Em discussão judicial está a possibilidade de um termo genérico como &#8220;booking&#8221; ser acrescentado de um &#8220;.com&#8221; e, em conjunto, ambos serem registados como <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com-b-v/">uma única marca</a>.</p>
<p>Antes da audição dos <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/19-46_6647.pdf">argumentos orais</a>, foi realizada uma <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/educational-seminar-preview-of-u-s-patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com/">antecipação</a> por Tejinder Singh da Goldstein &amp; Russell e John Duffy da University of Virginia School of Law:</p>
<p><span class="embed-youtube" style="text-align:center; display: block;"><iframe class='youtube-player' width='640' height='360' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/zMwXHT8JXAE?version=3&#038;rel=1&#038;fs=1&#038;autohide=2&#038;showsearch=0&#038;showinfo=1&#038;iv_load_policy=1&#038;wmode=transparent' allowfullscreen='true' style='border:0;'></iframe></span></p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://tictank.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/booking.jpg?w=1200&fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[247]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>