RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

John,
Your argument flies in the face of reason and is definitely not
supported in existing US trademark law. In case you haven't noticed,
ICANN is subject to US law, first and foremost, because it exists on US
soil and under US corporate law.

A trademark can certainly be used for a chartered TLD. Moreover, there
is no way a TM holder would sign such a contract (that can force a US
trademark holder to relinquish their IP rights), because it would
supercede the US PTO. That organization is the final authority,
certainly, not a non-profit, private, California corporation. Those IP
rights are issued by a government and supported by the courts, as well
as, international treaties. Simply signing such an agreement can cost
the trademark holder their IP rights (US requirement to defend the TLD).
They wont do it. They woud rather use a root-registry that didn't
require such an onerous clause.

--------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://www.mhsc.com/
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------
[Note: I am NOT a Lawyer (IANAL) my legal opinion has NO STANDING in
court, as I am NOT an officer of the court. No statement made herein
constitutes legal advice under ANY circumstances. The reader is directed
to seek the advice of competent legal council in all matters of law.]


> Can companies invent gTLDs and have them as their own property?
> If yes, then of course, the argument is as you indicate, like
> the one of car
> makers with their models.
> If no, the we are on my side of the argument, in that the g
> in gTLD means
> GENERIC, and as such no particular company can claim the right to it.
> If we have both sides "yes" and "no", as in "generics are generics and
> cannot be owned, but trademarks could be converted into TLDs,
> and would be
> owned", then we have the question of should trademarks be
> allowed to exist
> as TLDs?
>
> I am very strongly of the opinion that GENERICS should not be
> "given away". I
> feel very strongly that a term like "web" is very much a generic, and
> therefore I find it ridiculous for it to be claimed in ownership by a
> company.
> I am also very strongly against the idea of letting
> trademarks exist as
> TLDs, because I believe that just puts the ".com" problem one
> step higher
> because every company would prefer to have its own TLD and
> eliminate the
> messy bits at the end (messy bits like ".com" or ".fr" or
> ".uk" or ".net" or
> even ".web").
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>