Obvious TM, but used in a descriptive manner?

[Slipxaway]

Does anyone know whether using an obvious TM in a descriptive manner would constitute infringement? Examples would be ChevyParts.com, BMWParts.com, BMWPartsForLess.com, Parts4Chevys.com, ChevroletRestorationWorld.com, FordTruckRestoration.com. These are all actual sites, so I am assuming that this type of usage is allowed, but I don't want to assume anything.

I managed to pick up a similar domain recently that dropped that has 60k Exact global searches per month and I want to develop it into a site, but I just want to make sure I can use it in a legitimate manner.

 

[katherine]

Seems like fair use to me. But if you are not car dealership/service co, or selling spare parts, it becomes more difficult to justify ownership.

 

[draggar]

Seems like fair use to me. But if you are not car dealership/service co, or selling spare parts, it becomes more difficult to justify ownership.

Good call.

Also - it is up to the TM owner to decide if they want to go after you or not for infringement. Some don't mind it (hey, it's free advertising for them) and let sites like this go, while others aggressively defend their marks.

A few tips:

DO NOT PARK THE DOMAIN. That is a red flag to TM owners and can be the fastest way to a C&D or a WIPO. Best to set up a blank page or a "coming soon" page and point it to that (since most registrars like to point unused domains to their own parking pages - you'll get in trouble for what they did).

If you do develop it make it 100% clear that you are not the company nor do you have any ties with them.

 

[wussadotcom]

Obvious TM?
heheh.. how about Google It

 

[charlescarreon]

Good lord, no, this isn't fair use!
The addition of a modifier to an otherwise distinctive or famous mark does not lessen the confusing similarity. In Peter Jerie v. Petr Burian a/k/a 1st Art Studio S.R.O., FA0609000795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (SPORTLIVESCORE.COM transferred because prefixing registered trademark “LIVESCORE” with modifier “sport” created confusion); see Assurant, Inc. v. Charlie Chang FA0909001285683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2009) (ASSURANTDIRECT.COM transferred because adding “direct” to registered trademark “ASSURANT” created confusion); see also Patrick J. Kennedy v. Texas International Property Associates, FA0909001283626 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2009)(WATERMARKGRILL.COM ordered transferred where complainant held registered trademark in “WATERMARK” for restaurant services).

There are 13 pages of decisions at the National Arbitration Forum on this topic, none favorable to your position. Search the terms "modifier+confusion" at this link http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx