Skip to main content


In 2020, in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. B.V., the Supreme Court clarified that the owner of a website with a descriptive domain name could trademark the name, even if it were styled “,” as long as it had acquired secondary meaning to consumers. Justice Breyer, in his dissent, vigorously argued that this ruling would limit competition. He claimed that allowing to trademark its brand name, which contains terms that competitors use to describe similar business activities, would essentially be giving it a monopoly. This Comment supports the majority’s decision, as it conforms with the Lanham Act. Further, this Comment maintains that existing protections mitigate Justice Breyer’s monopolization concerns and argues that the Patent and Trademark Office should instill a strict evidentiary requirement for consumer perception.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
7 Sep 2022
483 kB



  • Subject
    • Courts

    • Intellectual Property Law

    • Internet Law

    • Supreme Court of the United States

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Law Review

  • Volume
    • 62

  • Issue
    • 9

  • Pagination
    • E.Supp. II.-303

  • Date submitted

    7 September 2022

  • Additional information