Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Jeff Williams wrote:

> IP and trademark are not external property rights at all.
> See: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856918.html as yet another example...

Jeff, thanks for this.. it's relevance and interest were well timed.
Interestingly, Judge O'Scannlain states the following in his opinion: "Other than
requiring an applicant to make certain representations, Network Solutions
does not make an independent determination about a registrant's right to use a
particular domain name."

This is not true.  Try registering a domain name including the words Olympic,
Olympian, or Olympiad .whatever and see what Network Solutions or Register.com
will tell you...

Also, the Judge continues a little later on:

"The domain name is more than a mere address: like trademarks, second-level
domain names communicate information as to source."

That is an explicit statement of property qualification.  It could not be more
clear.

Never mind that philosophically the very activity of naming (i.e. te creative
act) is an act of possession in and of itself.

>
> Or even and older reference:
> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_85661,00.html
> which clearly states that Domain Names are indeed Private Property.

Once again Jeff, good heads-up on this research.  This quote pretty much sums it
up: "Typically we thought registrants had a two-year license to a domain name,
but the court is suggesting they have a property interest. As a result, if the
registry takes a name away from you without a legal basis, than you can sue them
for civil damages. And that's a powerful thing," Fausett said."

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

--
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