Do you think a company can claim trademark on their stock symbol?

[Maxwell]

For example, Google has GOOG as their stock ticker symbol.

If I were to own GOOG.com, or any other company's stock ticker symbol in the form of a domain name, do you think they could pursue me for it?

[copper]

It all depend on how you use that domain name.
They can IF you monetize it by doing something related to their TM or business.

Note:I am not a lawyer, so, it's just my opinion and/or common sense.

[marcorandazza]

They could, conceivably, pursue you for it. It would come down to how you used it.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/0...on-for-efxcom/

That post should be somewhat instructive.

[jberryhill]

The question of whether anything is a trademark is whether that thing is a trademark.

Does the company apply this string of characters to its goods or services in such a way as to function as a distinctive indicator of the source or origin of those goods and services?

It doesn't matter whether the string of characters is the ticker symbol or the CEO's cufflink monogram - it is simply a question of "is this thing used as a trademark?"

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2002-0462.html

Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant claims common law service mark or trademark rights arising from its New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol. Yet, Complainant's claim of common law rights is supported only by the existence of a ticker symbol whose sole use is alleged to be with investors in the context of investing. Furthermore, MRX has been a registered trademark of Alcon Laboratories, a company in Complainant's business field, pharmaceuticals, since September 15, 1981, and Complainant traded under a different ticker symbol until 1998, three years after the registration of the domain name in dispute. Complainant has not made a persuasive showing of proving that it has trademark rights in a mark that is confusingly similar to the domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish that the MRX ticker symbol functions as a common law trademark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel questions whether mere use of a stock ticker symbol with investors can ever rise to the level of creating common law "trademark rights" within the meaning of Paragraph 4 of the Policy because the ticker nickname use is not use of a brand name to identify the particular product or service of the proprietor. In any event, a finding that a stock ticker symbol has been used in a trademark sense sufficient to give rise to common law rights would require more compelling proof than has been presented by the Complainant here.

In US litigation, it is a time-tested principle that a stock ticker symbol PER SE, does not function as a trade or service mark for that company's products.

Now, I put "PER SE" in big capital letters. Many companies DO use their ticker symbol as a trade or service mark. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company uses "MET" as a mark, and it also happens to be their NYSE ticker symbol.

For something like "GOOG", another question is whether "GOOG" is sufficiently similar to their "GOOGLE" mark, in a given context, to constitute confusing similarity with their "GOOGLE" mark.

So, really, the question is not so much whether "a stock ticker symbol is a trademark", the question is whether "a trademark is a trademark". It's always the same question, no matter what other significance a symbol may have.