Re: [wg-b] No protections for common words

[Matt Hooker <matthooker@rocketmail.com>]

12/1/99

I think this is an extremely important point. Even if
a "common word(s) or expression" has been trademarked,
we must allow a prior registered, non-diluting, domain
owned and used by someone other than the trademark
holder to stand. I use "non diluting" in the sense
that the domain and use (site) cannot refer to the
same subject as the trademerk.

For example if someone had registered "SuperMan.com,
Super-Man.com" or with any other g or cc TLD, and had
a site up glorifing the human race, and its
achievements, then Time Warner, the owner of the
trademark for the fictional character "Superman"
should not be able to take it away from them; nor
proactively prohibit that domains' registration by a
third party, if unregistered.

Another example: if someone registered the domain
"United.com", etc, and was using the domain for
anything other than a site designed to dilute or
confuse as to ownership any of the famous "United"
brands, like United Airlines, United Van Lnes, United
Artists, etc), then the domain should be allowed to
stand.

I feel very strongly about this point. Common words
and expressions are not the automatic property of
trademark holders with trademarks on the same common
words or expressions.

Regards,

Matt Hooker
Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
matthooker@hotmail.com

--- KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
> I think we are in agreement. 
> 
> Kathy
> 
> > 
> >  Finally, I agree with you that any safeguards
> that would have the end 
> result
> >  of granting monopolistic rights in common
> ordinary words would be
> >  unacceptable.
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com