Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is theaccreditatio...

[Stephen Waters <swaters@amicus.com>]

On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 20:40, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Stephen and all staleholders or interested parties,
> 
> Stephen Waters wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2001-12-31 at 18:01, Bruce Young wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't disagree.  However, the law as it currently exists recognizes the
> > > right of trademark holders over domain names whether we agree or not.  I'm
> > > just arguing to limit that right to a few domains.  Otherwise, opening new
> > > TLDs is pointless: if tradmarks are allowed to rule in ALL domains, opening
> > > a new TLDs does no one any good -- except the trademak holder, who would
> > > have yet another domain they probaly don't need anyway!
> >
> > I think the following scenario would work... what do y'all think?
> >
> > i) [tm] is ruled not to be watered down simply by the presence of
> > alternative, similar domains. i.e., [tm] holders are not required to buy
> > them all up or sue like madmen to keep their [tm].
> >
> > ii) anyone should be able to hold a domain with a [tm] word or phrase so
> > long as the content does not attempt to infringe upon [tm] holder or
> > otherwise confuse the consumer. Getting the wrong address (i.e., domain)
> > is *not* considered consumer confusion.
> >
> > thoughts?
> 
>   This is a good idea Stephen IMHO.  It has been made before in a little
> different terms however.  The IP community rejected the idea on a number
> of grounds which I will not elaborate here in this response.  As I also
> recall there WAS/IS a .TM (DotTM) TLD that could be used for this
> purpose as well.  I not sure if it still exists or was "Sanctioned" by
> the ICANN BoD and staff.  None the less with different countries
> having different Trade Mark laws and the US TM law (See Lanaham Act)
> it is the responsibility, in the US anyway, that the TM holder be responsible
> for defending their Mark.  This would also be true, in the US, for
> Common Law Marks as well.  Hence perhaps you can see why the
> IP community did not and does not still like this method which you
> again present here.

I was unclear... by "ruled", I meant by a US court or something, perhaps
supplemented by an international treaty. The courts are going to have to
treat domains as addresses or make a specific exception to [tm],(R),
etc. laws before the light of reason shines on the IP community, IMHO.
:-)

-s

PGP signature