"HTV is trademarked, but HTVNews is not trademarked"
There must be some sort of virus that spreads this particular variety of group madness.
I'll try again with different words, as I have failed miserably to express the following concept adequately in many other threads.
Trademark law is not about ownership in gross of specific strings of alphanumeric characters.
If I, as an attorney, develop a trademark interest in the term "John Berryhill" for the provision of legal services, then for someone to say "But his trademark is not 'John Berryhill the Lawyer'" is outright nutty.
Now, in the UK, the registered trademark HTV is used in association with the provision of... uh.... NEWS! That is to say that HTV is a brand of news publishing or broadcasting service.
Now, if someone were using the term "HTV" in the UK as a trademark for "Happy Therapeutic Vitamins", it would be beyond clear that they weren't trying to get a free ride off of the goodwill accrued in the term "HTV" in connection with that brand of news publishing.
However, the addition of the word "news", which are the very services provided under the mark "HTV", makes it a *stronger* argument that the domain name was intended to target their news publishing services, not a *weaker* one because "HTVNews is not trademarked".
A lot of people are named McDonald, and anything owned by a person named McDonald might be called "McDonald's" (but it is such a famous mark that virtually nobody could use it as a name for a fast food restaurant). But if you go out and register "McDonaldsHamburgers.com", because "their trademark is McDonald's, not 'McDonaldsHamburgers'", then you should be thankful that committment to an institution for the insane is not an option for UDRP panelists.
