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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Sotiris,
The key isue here is in the initial sentence:
"Brookfield Communications, Inc. ("Brookfield") appeals the district 
court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting West 
Coast Entertainment Corporation ("West Coast") from using in commerce terms 
confusingly similar to Brookfield's trademark, "

The key word is "in commerce".

The vision of the Judge is not Internet but commerce oriented. Let assume 
that you as a private person would have used the same DN to access your 
family site, do you think the reasoning would have been the same? The role 
of TM is not to give property over the name, but to avoid confusion into a 
specific product class. Family life is not a class protected by TMs.

The entire DN issue is a confusion based upon two mistakes:
- to believe that DNs are something different from the name of something, 
because this would expose the "ICP-3" error and reduce the Internet to the 
common law.
- to treat the Internet as only a commercial issue. (Helped by the fact 
that "com" stands more for "communication" than for "commerce" in people's 
mind and that "org" is not a clear string.

Marc, you probably know that better than anyother one what is the UDRP 
trend on .net and .org when compared with .com?

Jefsey


On 07:02 30/07/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>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

--
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