Re: [wg-b] Famous Trademarks

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

peter.weiss@chanelusa.com wrote:

> To the extent that they are purely commercial speech, they may be prohibited if they constitute unfairly competive or fraudulent speech. To the extent that they say something about governance, they should be protected. Isn't that pretty much the position that courts everywhere, including the US, have taken so far, even if not in those precise terms?
>

But this is precisely the point. The disputes and limitations you mention were adjudicated by courts under laws passed by elected legislatures and subject to constitutional checks and balances.

ICANN is not a court, or a legislature, nor is it even elected. ICANN claims to be a "technical coordination" agency running the DNS. It has no business creating prior exclusion of certain names before anyone knows how it is being used, whether it causes confusion, etc., etc.