WOW...

Once someone at the USPTO makes a mistake and allows a generic descriptive term to be marked, it's curtains.

"Def Jam" is a descriptive term in hiphop language, but that didn't stop the USPTO allowing it to become a TM, claimed now to be distinctive.

Interesting, though "Def Jam" imo is much more distinctive than "channel 11" (very generic) and not a parallel example.

I see only one TM in the USPTO database and it's for "NewsChannel 11". It's a registration on the supplemental register, not the principal register indicating that it is not distinctive enough to preclude use by others. I am not surprised at the absence of "channel 11" marks in the database due to its highly generic nature.

Given that Sarah's domain, "channel 11", is not identical to "NewsChannel 11", or even confusingly similar, then there is a good chance she would succeed in UDRP. Or more accurately that one of the 100's of station users of "channel 11" could successfully demonstrate rights sufficient to prohibit someone else's use of the domain.

The Channel 5 case quoted by Safe is interesting, but a bit of an anomaly I think. The respondent was supposedly a reknowned cybersquatter who had already lost several cases on TM infringement. Importantly, the complainant had also registered (in the UK) the exact phrase "Channel 5", not a derivative. I would not assume that one can generalize future decisions from that particular case.

The fact that so many U.S. stations across the country are on Channel 11, or make reference to it, greatly reduces the likelihood that any one of them could claim exclusive use, ex. Miami Cycles, Miami Homes, and Miami Auto (none of whom could claim trademark rights to "Miami" due to its prevalence as a generic term). It would be virtually impossible for any entity to establish secondary meaning on the generic ,"Miami", and from that prohibit others from using the word.

Looks like a John B. Berryhill (posts here?) represented the respondent. Would enjoy his comments on that case. The UK case lost primarily on "registration and use in bad faith".

90% of the UDRP panelists would find it confusingly similar.

90% of the UDRP panelists are confusingly similar.