[ga] NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All assembly members,

  Some more info/ideas on new TLD's from the Noncom list...
==================

Subject:
             Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

        Date:
             Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:24:53 -0500
       From:
             James Love <love@cptech.org>
 Organization:
             http://www.cptech.org
         To:
             Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
         CC:
             NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org
  References:
             1 , 2 , 3




I think Kent Crispin's "so what" question is a fair one.  In Cairo, I
tried to get a sense of what names would be included on such a list.  At

first, the trademark lawyers were using numbers like "200," which did
seem to be a cheap price to pay for expanded TLD space.

Then, the number kept growing, until one guy came in and used the number

50,000.   I think this is a practical and serious issue.  How big would
the list be?  There is also an issue of the type of protection Pesi
would get.  Would Pesi get protection from popesitdown.com or
pesivcoke.comparison?

And, if the world wants to set a global trademark policy, why doesn't
the world do this through its existing international institutions like
WIPO or WTO?   Why does ICANN, hardly a representative or accountable
group, become a policy maker in this area?

 Jamie

Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 03:50:53PM -0500, James Love wrote:
> >     Before the NCDNHC's decides to compromise, it might be a good
idea
> > to decide if it has a consensus on the merits of the issue.
>
> On the merits, a social utility argument: I assume that, though the
> definition is fuzzy, famous marks that are not common words really do
> exist (eg kodak, pepsi), and that the owners of those marks are
required
> to defend them, at their own expense, or lose them or otherwise suffer

> economic harm.  That is, a registration of kodak.blat by some other
> party does constitute an authentic problem for the company -- at the
> very least, kodak is required to investigate, which costs money.
Thus,
> a domain speculator can acquire that domain name, and offer to sell it

> at an amount somewhat less than the average cost of a UDRP proceeding.

> For example, I could get kodak.blat and offer to sell it to kodak for
> $500, which is very much less than what kodak would have to pay to go
> through the UDRP.  Thus, economically, kodak's hands are tied -- if
the
> number of gTLDs is large, then domain speculators can make a very good

> living by registering names that are trademarks and reselling them to
TM
> holders at a slight markup -- say 10 times the registration fee.  As
> long as that markup is significantly below the cost of dispute
> resolution, the TM holder's hands are tied by economic reality.
>
> Owners of intellectual property understandably don't want to go
through
> this gratuitious expense.  It is just a parasitic transfer of wealth
> from the TM owner to the speculator, with no social value -- the
> creation of the gTLD is a pure expense for the TM owner, and it is
fair
> to say that the TLD is being created at the expense of the TM owners.
>
> I see the prevention of parasitic money transfers as a positive good.
>
> What is the negative?  The negative is that people won't be able to
use
> the reserved names for other uses.  From my perspective this is a big
> so what.  They can come up with other names.  Of course, a famous
marks
> list could be abused, and that is an issue.  But the idea in general
> seems quite reasonable.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: love@cptech.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

--
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html