RE: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]

[erony@marin.k12.ca.us (Ellen Rony)]

Steve Hartman wrote:

>I am not sure of the point you are making. Obviously, if oreo.com is
>excluded, then so should oreos.com and other non-material variants. I don't
>consider the line between ihateoreos.com, on the one hand, and oreo.com and
>its non-material variants to difficult to draw.

You are describing both extremes of the spectrum, but what about those
variants that are less obvious?   MyOreos? iOreos?  Oreos2K?  Oreos4us?
OreosNMore?  PlanetOreos?  It's a slippery slope.

Take a look at the Porsche suit to see a list of variants (129 of them)
that the trademark owner thought should be excluded.  It includes
PorscheBank and PorscheLynn (an adult movie star).

Or the suit filed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which
listed theoscars.com as one of the domain names it challenged.  Would that
be "the Oscars" or Theo's Cars?

Indeed, a slippery slope.


Ellen Rony                                                       Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook         ____        http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================     ^..^     )6     =============================
ISBN 0879305150              (oo) -^--                   +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us            W   W                         Tiburon, CA
               Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.