Re: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE

[Rod Dixon <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

There are areas for which gut instinct or opinion may get us into
trouble. I will not bother to point out why some of the comments
regarding "trademark," "copyright," and even "patent" with regard to the
term .web (or any other one word TLD for that matter) are off the mark.
The important point is that some of us do not find a problem with
adopting a gTLD that someone may have a property interest in. If we care
to discuss this more seriously, then we should probably unwrap this
property issue more carefully.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> I partially agree with this analysis. A proprietary TLD is primarily an
> exclusive right to administer a zone file, and the claim to exclusivity derives
> from the operation of that registry and not from the trademark per se. I am
> approaching this not from a trademark law standpoint but from the standpoint of
> regulatory economics, which tells us that a business that has a property right
> over an asset is more likely to invest in it and cultivate its value than an
> asset that is not owned. That is why I think numerous competing, exclusive
> registries should be authorized.
> 
> As I stated in an earlier post, one could make a legitimate claim to operate a
> branded dot web registry without gaining any rights over the use of the term
> "web" in other contexts. It is clear from the news release that Ambler is not
> claiming a "copyright" or patent-type exclusivity over the term "web," as if he
> invented it or own it. He is claiming an exclusive right to run the dot web
> zone. I suspect the same is true of CORE.
> 
> However, I can see a problem in Kevin's claim that one cannot get from a
> trademark to exclusivity of TLD names. If ICANN attempted to authorize a .ibm
> TLD and gave it to someone to administer other than IBM, don't you think IBM
> would make--and probably win--a trademark claim?
> 
> Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> 
> > Dear Readers:
> >
> > ICANN's involvement in this lovefest should be sharp but limited.
> >
> > Reputedly, ISOC and ISI have been instrumental in establishing
> > that "Internet" is not trademarkable; the same should be recognized
> > as true of .web (as well as the other gTLDs that CORE is said to
> > have filed trademark applications for).
> >
> > It is hornbook law that a word in common usage cannot be
> > appropriated as a trademark unless it is being applied to goods or
> > services in an arbitrary, fanciful, non-descriptive manner.
> >
> > I don't think that there is any doubt but that under principles of
> > US trademark law, neither IOD nor CORE has a right to appropriate
> > .web as a top level domain.  Exclusivity over top levels domains
> > must derive (if it is to exist at all) from some source other than trademark
> > law.
> >
> > Kevin J. Connolly
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
> > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
> > munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
> > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
> > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> > **********************************************************************
> 
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

-- 


Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
rod@cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org