The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is considered to have a generic meaning to consumers.

[4] A key issue raised on appeal was the consideration that the components of "booking.com" ("booking" and ".com") were both considered generic, but as the Fourth Circuit upheld, their combination was recognized by consumers as a unique service due to the online domain name, rather than a broad range of online booking services, as to align with the prior decision from the Supreme Court case Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg.

The majority's decision emphasized the importance of the Lanham Act and consumer perception, as well as the uniqueness of domain names.

That premise is faulty, for only one entity can occupy a particular Internet domain name at a time, so a 'generic.com' term could convey to consumers an association with a particular website.

"[10] In his dissent, Breyer wrote "By making such terms eligible for trademark protection, I fear that today's decision will lead to a proliferation of 'generic.com' marks, granting their owners a monopoly over a zone of useful, easy-to-remember domains.