Re: [wg-b] Brand Names That Are Not Allowed To Be Used InAdvertising

[Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>]

"Permitting trademark law to trump free expression also gives domain name
registrars the de facto right to reject or cancel
any domain name at any time, with or without reason--a clear violation of
due process."
		--Shari Steele, EFF (Nov 6, 1998)

I think we are arguing in the wrong venue.  Nothing we say here will make a
whit of difference.  Everyone on this list should join the DNRC (Domain
Name Rights Coalition) and give it more leverage to take these issues past
ICANN directly to Congresscritters.  This is, after all, an election year,
and politics is process.


John Berryhill wrote:

>I think you have something there, Ms. Aguilar.
>
>Why, I recently read that America Online is selling the domain name
>aol.com to Time Warner for quite a bit of money.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: M. Hope Aguilar <hope@gazillion.com>
>To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
>Cc: <wg-b@dnso.org>
>Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-b] Brand Names That Are Not Allowed To Be Used In Advertising
>
>
>> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> John:
>>
>> I know you know the answer!   The communicative value of the Internet
>>WILL BE
>> preserved.  The communication will, however, go to the highest bidder.
>>
>> The seller of the generic domain name, "Camel" will not be some
>>anonymous "John
>> Doe" who was lucky enough to think of the generic word first; it will be
>>R.J.
>> Reynolds.  Besides, why should common people have such benefits
>>automatically
>> conferred upon them?
>>
>> Corporate trademark holders of the world have been forced to pay for
>>lobbies to
>> protect and enforce their interests on the Internet.  Remember, John
>>what the TM
>> holders are preventing is the "LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION" of their
>>products with
>> actual generic things.  Thus, in the interest of protecting netizens
>>from being
>> deceived, R.J. Reynolds will hold twenty-one generic domain names
>>("Camel," plus
>> twenty variations like "Camels," "CamelDrivers," "CamelPack,"
>>"PackOfCamels,"
>> and the like) which they will then sell to the highest bidder through
>>special
>> domain name brokers at www.sunrise-plus20.com.
>>
>> This way, R.J. Reynolds' trademark is protected.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hope
>>
>> --
>> M. Hope Aguilar
>> Gazillion Interactive               (310) 556.1875
>> 1925 Century Park East
>> Suite 1050                     Fax: (310) 556-3180
>> Los Angeles, CA 90067-2701 hope@gazillion.com
>>


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Ellen Rony                    //          http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author                  *="  ____ /            erony@marin.k12.ca.us
The Domain Name Handbook      \     )                  +1  415.435.5010
                              //   \\             "Carpe canine"

          The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.