[ga] Domain Name Rights And Other Fairy Stories

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 06:37 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

Kent is telling you all fairy stories.

Legally binding examples exist right now of domain names which have 
acquired secondary meaning through use and have been granted US Federal 
trademark status. Here's an example:

http://trademarks.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+ALL+3+990081+0+0+264501+F+2+16+1+MS%2famazon%2ecom

So far the stupid IP lawyers tricks expressed here are for trademark 
holders sans domain name. There has been next-to-nothing within wg-b or the 
DNSO that expresses the true spirit and intent of trademark law, which is 
to allow the creation of new marks and therefore trademark protection for 
new & innovative enterprises utilizing new domain names as the identity of 
source of goods and services.

See EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm

The USPTO don't have it 100% correct (I find it humorous that they 
explicitly accept trademark registrations for non-ICANN root domain names), 
but they have a much, much better handle on it than the fairy stories we 
hear from Kent Crispin.

>On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:41:34AM +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>[...]
> > >No, they don't.  The "rights" that go with a domain are purely defined
> > >through contracts and laws, and those "rights" are being developed as
> > >we speak.
> >
> > What is your legal difinition of a Domain Name?
>
>There is no legal definition of a domain name, but laws are being passed
>that deal with domain names, and those laws define the rights that apply
>to domain names.
>
>[...]
>
> > >Yes.  Every one of those things, under some circumstance or another,
> > >can affect your "right" to your real property.
> >
> > This requires an authority to determine the circumstances and legitimate
> > the restriction or the removal.
>
>Of course.
>
> > Internet belongs to everyone as it is nothing
> > (inter-net is like inter-national or the air you breath). There is no other
> > legitimacy for a decision to be taken and respected than mutual agreement
> > or war. Do you really mean "your rights are okay until I invade you"?
>
>That's not what I wrote.
>
> > >There are no a priori "rights" to domain names -- no rights of free
> > >speech or expression, no rights of possession or ownership.  People are
> > >busily trying to *assert* rights to domain names, but nobody is
> > >special, it's just a free-for-all of people saying "mine mine mine",
> > >and the winners are yet to be determined.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on this.
>
>There are actively competing theories about what rights belong to domain
>names.  These are theories, not realities.  Protagonists for the various
>theories try to convince lawmakers to implement their view, with varying
>degrees of success.  But the situation is not stable, and the winners
>are yet to be determined.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>--
>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


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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