Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

I agree to some extent that TMs should be afforded protection. That extent
differs in a huge degree to what is currently happening. The mere existence
of the same letter string used in a domain name as is used in a TM is not a
TM violation. The Nissan Motors vs Nissan Computers case is a classic
example for those of you familiar with the case. I for one, know the
difference between a computer and an automobile. Nissan Motors doesn't seem
to think people will. WIPO has effectively put a man whose last name IS
Nissan out of the computer selling business because Nissan Motors Lawyers
said they should. Network Solutions suspended the name pending outcome of
the trial. There was no trademark violation. There was no intent to sell the
name to Nissan Motors by way of greenmail or any other way. Their offer to
buy it was refused from what I understand. Ahh, but then SWIPO will help us
steal the name.. A Domain Name was not intended to represent Trademarks.
When you file a Trademark, it does not say anywhere in the documents you
recieve that this TM also entitles you to the Domain Name matching it.

Before you say this is off topic, I will remind everyone this very issue has
been brought up as a point to discuss here. I think it's brought up a little
early however. I'm still waiting for the work on one topic at a time to be
addressed as I have suggested several times. We have a list. Let's go topic
by topic so everyone can understand and respond with their opinions on that
topic until we have a majority and minority opinion or opinions on each
topic, then resolve to move to the next topic when appropriate to do so.

If someone will repost the questions, hopefully Miss Park, we can start to
do this and maybe get somewhere.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


> I think this list has already achieved about the only consensus we're
likely to achieve: we all agree that a review of to-date DNSO and NC
agendas,
> initiatives and directions is important enough to warrant our
participation in this WG.
>
> This having been said, let me offer up something which may help to
initiate some movement in our discussion:
>
> Towards a definition of a domain name:
>
> Domain names are an addressing schema akin to a telephone number or IP
string.  The only difference between a telephone#/ip address and a domain
> name is that the syntax of the latter is composed of linguistic characters
as opposed to numerals.  One of the most primary (for many THE most primary)
> issue(s) of contention with regards to domain names is the to-date de
facto conflation of domains with trademarks.  Unless they are coined words
or fall
> within the purview of an sTLD schema, I fail to see why TLDs should be
considered cognates of trademarks.  For, just as nobody can claim to own a
> telephone number except the phone company which provides the service, a
domain name is a public service offered in the most equitable fashion
> imaginable: first come, first served.
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html