You need to be a little careful. For the reasons I pointed out in aQuote:>BTW, if you want you can create a web site called radioshack-sucks.com on the
>web and Tandy can't do anything about it as long as your statements are
>accurate and truthful. The EFF and ACLU have backed others with other such
>sites as AOLSUCKS.COM and dozens of others. U-HAUL tried to stop a web site
>that criticized it's business practices and the EFGA backed the site owner and
>they had a little out of court settlement which made the creator quite happy.
prevoius case, names like AOL and U-Haul and especially U-Haul, as
just names, are at best, very weak trademarks. U-Haul is clearly
descriptive, so it flunks. However other names exist that could be
trademark, and using one of them as a web site name probably would
infringe. For instance a web site built around a name like Pr1me or
Kodak is likely to be a problem because they do meet the name does
pass the trademark tests and almost any use of the name is likely to
be infringing, whereas the use of Radio Shack without the logo, or
U-Haul without the logo is probably not infringing since the name
itself isn't the trademark (it can't be becasue the names fails the
legal requirements for a trademark).
One of the reasons Xerox doesn't like people to use the name as verb
is that makes the name descriptive, which would cause Xerox to lose
trademark status.