RE: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Martin,

What if the counties of "Contra Costa" and "Alameda" wanted to start a TLD
registry with the EBAY TLD? Chartered, according to my WG-C proposal, to
register organizations headquartered in the East SF Bay Area? Is that an
infringement? Further, even if it was, would it be actionable under US law?
I believe that copyrights, patents, and other marks, are not binding for
governmental entities (USG can violate copyright/patent anytime it wants to,
with impunity)?

I realize that this may be a corner case, but it's not that unlikely a
corner.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Martin B. Schwimmer
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 12:38 PM
> To: wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B
>
>
> >- All suggested mechanisms that ICANN could implement to
> protect famous marks
> >   are either ineffective or harmful to the development of
> commercial and
> >   non-commercial use of the Internet
>
>
> Why would the exclusion of third-party registration of
> kodak.firm from the
> .firm TLD be ineffective in protecting the KODAK mark?
>
> Why would the prohibition of third-party registration of ebay.firm be
> harmful to the development of commercial use of the Internet?
>  It seems as
> if the ability of the consumer to trust the fact that ebay.firm or
> kodak.biz were associated with the owners of those famous
> trademarks would
> aid, not hinder commercial use of the Internet.
>
> >- UDRP will significantly reduce the cost to the "famous
> mark" holders of
> >   protecting their marks against clear cases of cyberpiracy
> compared to
> >   the curent situation
>
> Is your goal to increase the cost?
>
> >- A few more years of discussion in non-Internet fora about
> how to decide
> >   what marks are internationally famous or not is likely to lead to
> >   conclusions, and ICANN should not attempt to guess at
> these conclusions
> >   at the present time; doing so might even harm, delay or bias the
> >   non-Internet process for reaching conclusions in this matter.
>
> Red herring.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>