[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] .UNION Top-level domain name
The Bally Sucks case was not a domain name case but a pathname case in the
form xyz.com/ballysucks/ so part of the URL had another identifier in it.
But it is a plausible argument that for the specifc TLD .sucks, there is no
assumption that a name identifiable by the SLD is the source of origin
(this point is, to my knowledge, being contested). That's not to say that
a competitor couldn't abusively register and use bally.sucks.
So the BallySucks case could be cited in support of your argument. And if
such a TLD which unambiguously on its face communicates no connection with
the SLD, then a specific exemption from famous mark process might be
appropriate.
But the reasoning in BallySucks does not support the argument for .union or
.ecology, and I await a discussion of how previous cases have treated these
issues. On the union point, I have not seriously studied the issue but it
is my impression as a consumer that unions tend to identify themselves
through their industry or trade, and not by a specific employer (AFL-CIO,
UAW, Teamsters) thus a name such as cocacola.union might well suggest that
Coca Cola has approved of or is sponsoring some type of umbrella site for
its unions. Furthermore, to my knoweldge, there is no set "Charter" for
.union we could look at it so that we could seriously consider the issue.
I also don't think ICANN will implement a .isnotfair TLD anytime soon. Is
isnotfair.com taken?
At 01:47 PM 3/27/00 -0500, you wrote:
>"Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
>>
>> >> But rather, if
>> >> >there exist charted TLDs, like .union, .isnotfair, or .ecology, can
they
>> >> >be used in connection with a product, organization or company name?
>> >> >For example, would boeing.union, exxon.union, cocacola.union,
>> >> >volvo.union and similar names be permitted without the permission of
>> >> >Boeing, Exxon, Cocacola, Volvo, etc?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think the answer should be a clear yes.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Please brief us on the law, citing cases.
>> >
>> >Let's try the Lanham Act and the US constitution for starters?
>> >
>>
>> Citing cases.
>>
>> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>
> What about the Ballysucks case. Wouldn't that apply also to
>bally.sucks?
>
>
>
>--
>=======================================================
>James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org
>Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org
>P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
>Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176
>=======================================================
>
>
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @