[wg-b] Brand Names That Are Not Allowed To Be Used In Advertising

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

Moving on to some practical aspects, and getting beyond this "free speech"
distraction....

Does anyone have any practical suggestions on what to do with trademarks
that are not allowed to be used in connection with advertising in many
places?

For example, what is the point of allowing cigarette companies the right to
pre-emptively register their domain names, when they are largely forbidden
from advertising their product anyway, and none of them has had the cojones
to test whether that rule applies to the internet?

I've checked the registration for such terms as  winston.com , camel.com ,
and doral.com, and none of them belong to the "right" people.  I personally
smoke a pack of Camel Lights each day, and I can't even find anywhere on the
internet to buy them.

What the sunrise provision does is to ensure that R.J. Reynolds will have
priority in the word "Camel" over someone who wants to sell camels - you
know, that funny animal that spits.

Now, Muhammad's Camel Lot cannot get a registered trademark for the word
"Camel", so he can't pre-emptively register the word "Camel" as a domain
name.  R.J. Reynolds, on the other hand, would be crucified if they actually
used their registration for "Camel" cigarettes to sell them on the internet.
But you can bet that they are going to "protect their brand" by making sure
that you aren't going to find any dromedaries at camel.anything.  Now THAT
makes a world of sense.

As a matter of fact, you can't get a trademark registration for any term
which is generic for those goods and services.

So what the sunrise provision does is to set up a domain name system where
the generic names of goods and services are LESS likely to have any
correspondence to a domain name.

That reduces the communicative value of the internet.  If I want to look at
a camel, then it makes sense for the domain name to have something to do
with camels.  Why should a special right be granted to someone who is not
even allowed to advertise their product under that brand?

I'd walk a mile for an answer to that one.