> If GodTube.com, a religion-centric video site can exist, then so can TeachBook. Arguably, Youtube has lost its claim on "tube" by not defending its trademark

> If GodTube.com, a religion-centric video site can exist, then so can TeachBook. Arguably, Youtube has lost its claim on "tube" by not defending its trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark#Avoiding_genericide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark#Avoiding_... If Youtube had sent cease and desist letters to Godtube and other "-tubes", and escalated to court if the person hadn't ceased and desisted, it probably would have worked. (This doesn't get into the morality or cool/uncoolness or business strategy or PR aspects of it, it's just trademark law) > I don't see how any company can own generic words when used as part of a phrase, even when the industry is the same. Actually, that's exactly what a trademark is. Owning generic words and phrasings in the same industry. > I can certainly create a company called MicroChime or YouChime or ChimeSoft. Debatable. MicroChime would probably be okay if you sold small chimes. If you sold operating systems and business software, you'd absolutely get a cease and desist, and you'd almost certainly lose if it went to court. Again, this doesn't get into the morality of it, just how trademarks generally work these days.