Re: [wg-c] A branded TLD would be .nsi

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> MM wrote:

> >Both Ambler and NSI want to be the exclusive registry
> >for a specific TLD string, .web and .com respectively.
> >Those claims as I understand them in no way involve
> >a claim that the string ".web" or ".com" belongs to them,
> >whenever they are used. It is simply a claim that
> >no one else can register names under .web and .com on
> >the common root of the Internet. It is a claim to exclusivity
> >of a certain type of service as branded by the TLD.
>
> As branded by the TLD administrator's trademark.

Not necessarily. Substitute the word "identified" or"distinguished" for the word
"branded" above and my point is
clearer. The .web registry is basically the *only* place
that knows how to resolve a domain name ending in .web.
Therefore any domain name ending in .web is associated
with the services offered by that registry. IOD or someone
else can obtain trademark rights in .web by operating
this registry. It is an identifer that distinguishes his business
from another. They could argue on TM grounds, it seems
to me, for exclusivity of registration services under .web--
but not, of course, for exclusivity of the use of the term
web or dot web.


> Ambler's and NSI's claims
> would rise or fall on issues other than trademark law.

Based on the rationale above, why?And if you're right, which issues?

> Not analogous, as in this case the DN owner doesn't wear the suffix,

Aren't we being a bit too literal, here? It "wears" the suffix onits full domain
name.

> often incorporates the TLD suffix as part of its mark, as in amazon.com or
> drugstore.com or 1-800-flowers.com. PEPSICO, AMOCO, CITICORP and my
> favorite, ESPRIT DE CORP are all trademarks which incorporate corporate
> suffixes, which suggests why the suffixes themselves couldn't function as
> identifiers of a single source.

But a .com suffix clearly *does* identify a single source for
registry services

> >I would still like to see a TM lawyer explain why
> >TLDs can't be branded.
>
> Has a TM lawyer argued that they can't (as opposed to arguing that they
> shouldn't, on non-TM grounds)?

Yes. I tihnk Sally Abel did. More significantly, I would have thoughtthe TM/IP
constituency would be more sympathetic to the notion.

> No.  TLD, by definition, stands for top level domain.  .edu identifies the
> domain, not the domain identifier.

I don't understand this distinction.

>  The adminstrators of .com, .edu, .org
> and .net are not the same in 1999 as they were in 1991, and yet the TLDs
> themselves are unchanged.

The owners of brands may change? TMs can be bought and sold?

> I didn't say that TLDs couldn't theoretically be branded.  They could be
> branded. I understand that you are a big advocate of branded TLDs

I am a big advocate of a non-uniform, heterogeneous modelfor DNS administration.
Let there be shared generics, branded
ones, and everything in between.