how descriptive, is not per se entitled to trade mark-level protection. A domain name that uses, say, ‘Xerox’ or ‘Kodak’, enjoys the full protection afforded to both expressions qua trade marks, simply because these are fanciful words capable of the highest level of trade mark distinctiveness. These domain names are not mere Internet addresses for finding a string of numbers. Their use in domain names does not alter or erode their trade mark status. The reverse, however, is untrue: it is incorrect to suppose that every domain name, because it is a domain name, automatically receives the fullblown protection of a mark. If courts allow monopolies of this nature, then we should expect, and sooner rather than later, exclusivity claims over words like ‘grocery’, ‘secretary’, ‘investment’ and so on because some persons have set up domain names using those words: ‘grocery.com’, ‘secretary.com’ and ‘investment.com’. This is inconceivable, and it is not the law. Where a person uses a suitably distinctive trade mark, and has protection of it, his use of a domain name that has the same trade mark carries with it the same degree of protection. The fundamental requirement of distinctiveness remains true for both. An example, as an illustration, might suffice: using wildebeest.com for job hunting, for instance; there, the use of the expression is sufficiently distinctive.
