Re: [ga] UDRP Task Force

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

So UDRP is simple. Under current US PTO policy - or at least my
interprtation of it is that "there is no such thing" as a 1:1 relation
between trade marks and domain named. So this makes the need for a UDRP
moot, and so the first person to register a domain name gets its use through
that registration period.

Until such time as:

1)    Until some Court somewhere says that an DNS resolved Internet Address
(the textual representation of a numeric address) is identical to a
trademark.

2)    The US PTO already says that there is no trademark status with Domain
Names and the creation of a specific Internet class of marques would take an
act of law here, and until that happens - this was there response to me:

This following is a commentary from the PTO's AC (acting counsel)  for
TradeMarks in response to a question that a friend of mine in the PTO passed
to her
----------------
. "Art -- there have been discussions about this at different times.  The
tech world has said emphatically that it does not want domain names tied to
trademarks in any way.  On the other hand--one can only register a mark (in
the US) if it is source identifying for goods and/or services (not all
domain names would qualify).  There is however, no reason that a domain name
holder cannot register its domain name as a trademark now--if it wants
continuing IP protection and if it otherwise qualifies as a TM.

One could also propose a "notice" style register for domain names.  Such a
register could create a legal presumption as to ownership and right to use
the domain name (aside from any trademark rights).  Doing that would take
legislation."
----------------

The key concept here is that the trademark is not equated by the PTO at this
time to be an automatic sole right to use against the same name registered
as a DNS name.

Remeber also that the reason that there is only one .COM is because DNS does
not work like telephone numbers. This also is a problem I think. If there
were AREACODES in DNS then there could be any number of .COMs and this would
solve the bigger picture issues. The way this would work is that the
Registrars would get to stratify the more prestigeuos venues into ahigher
prcies reg fees and those on the lower tiers or in "outlying areas" would
not be so expensive. This allows for any number of segnments that can
support .com to be erected...

http://[AC]<System/Server><Domain.Name>.Anchoring TLD... which works like:

http://[us0]www.cocacola.com for instance could be the CocaCola company and
any of their foreign offices could be reached by merely changing the
country-code/zone identifier...

Likewise FORD Construction could easily be http://www.fordconstruction.com
still and Ford motors could be FORDMotors.COM, and since there is no UDRP in
this model, the first bonefide user of FORD.COM that registers it gets it.
But since with this model there are numerous ford.com possibilities its not
such a problem.

No, the real issue is that a lot of techies will go ballistic at this since
it means that their original DNS service models were broken when we tried to
move form a single NIC/Registrar model to the pool of competitive
registrars. personally its better to open the Internet to more DNS names
that are idenitcal than to only have one instanceof everything...

Just my 2 cents.

Todd Glassey


SNIP

Subject: [ga] UDRP Task Force


> Today marks the 9-month anniversary of the UDRP Task Force, and it has yet
to
> give birth to any recommendations.
> Perhaps someone on the TF can provide us with a status report and a
timetable
> for the completion of the tasks...
>
> --
> 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