[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs

To: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>, <wg-c@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:31:10 -0400
References: <NCBBJBALBKNODIJDEFMHMEKEHIAA.rmeyer@mhsc.com> <s7a6f545.081@gw1.rspab.com> <NCBBJBALBKNODIJDEFMHMEKEHIAA.rmeyer@mhsc.com> <19990803132230.B13500@songbird.com> <3.0.3.32.19990803170857.006983f8@mail.msen.com> <19990804000143.B20644@songbird.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

> > What's the answer?  You got it - MORE gTLDs.
>
> It might be the answer if humans were different.  But it is clear that
more
> gTLDs, by themselves, do not solve the large TM holders problem.  They
will
> still have to either register in every gTLD, or spend a lot of time
> policing all the new ones.

While I don't generally advocate this position, it does seem that less gTLDs
are the answer from an IP standpoint.

With no new gTLD's created, and .com/.net/.org phased out, ccTLDs and 240
separate governance processes take over, effectively rendering the global
resolution issue moot...

Just a thought...

-RWR

References:
- RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
  - From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
- Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
  - From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
- RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
  - From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
- Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
  - From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
- Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>

Prev by Date: Reposted for Rod Dixon: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread