[wg-c] Intellectual Property Rights and gTLDs (was: I/O DesignInitiates Legal Proceedings against CORE)

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

You're right, my post was imprecise :-S  Please don't
think I'm going willingly back into a Socratic mold :->

>>> Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> 07/19/99 05:33PM >>>

(snip)

>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?

Okay, my error consisted of omitting a single "g" character:
.ibm is not a gTLD, because by its very nature, it invokes a
very famous trademark.  (Yumpin Yiminy, talk about a seamless
web :-)

I repeat ( and clarify, restate :-) my prior assertion that 
no-one can successfully assert trademark rights as a means 
of appropriating to itself exclusive control over any gTLD.

By modus ponens, anyone who succeeds in establishing the
exclusive right to operate a TLD registry by reason of trademark
registration (or possibly other IP interest) demonstrates that the TLD
is not a gTLD.

Perhaps at some future time, ICANN will take up the question of
Special TLDs (comparable to .int) but those are not on our agenda.

This thinking does not rule out the possibility that a TLD can be imbued
with semantic content and remain a gTLD.  It has been observed that
restrictions on domain name registration are impractical to enforce.  I 
think that it's correct to say that it's impractical for the Registry or Registrar
to enforce a priori content restrictions on domain names.  That does not
mean that content is meaningless.

That content might (I hope it would) protect mcdonald.nom from attack by
the burger flippers, provided that mcdonald.nom was actually used to 
carry content about a famous clan of Scots or a member of that clan).
This content-enforcement would be undertaken by structures exogenous to the domain name system: probably United States federal courts.  It might also provide some refuge for 
commercial users as well.

For example, United Sporting Goods, were it to register under united.rec, might
(should) have a defense against infringement claims by United Van Lines, United
Air Lines, et c.  (I know, United is a weak mark and this isn't a great example, but
I hope it illuminates my thinking; besides, my day job is screaming for attention :-S 
so I haven't time to contemplate the perfect example of how content-relevant
TLD distinctions can prove useful even though the domain name system itself
doesn't even try to enforce them.)

KJC.2
(as usual, please disregard the silly trailer)

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************