Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.

[igoldste@mum.neric.org]

My one concern for TM claims is that holders should not be entitled to 
UDRP infringment on a subset of their Mark.  For example, if someone has 
registered "United Computer", while they (imho) should be protected for 
"unitedcomputer.tld" the TM should not grant them any privilege on either 
"united.tld" or "computer.tld" since the words united and computer are 
both generic terms and are not registerd to them.

--Ira Goldstein


On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 FRupp@aol.com wrote:

> IMHO 
> 
> If DNs are subject to UDRP for TM infringments or dilution...then...the Act 
> of Registration of a DN (could) constitute First Use in Business of a Common 
> Mark, and and also create IP rights, thus it becomes Property (of a type to 
> be determined)...and then it is up to the Registrant to go thru the process 
> of Trademarking the Use of the DN for his Business.
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/18/01 2:00:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> terastra@terabytz.co.nz writes:
> 
> 
> > 22:36 17/01/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > 
> > >I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with 
> > >respect to the above analysis of my findings.
> > >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >          Hermes Network, Inc. 
> > >
> > 
> > HelloSotiris,
> > 
> > Thank you very much for running this poll.
> > I filled it in myself, but I replied to many questions "other" because I
> > felt that the questions were not sufficiently unambiguous, or they were
> > leading.
> > For example the question: about conflating DN's Trademarks and Geographic
> > locations.I
> > ++++++++
> > n answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic 
> > indications be conflated with Domain names?
> > 
> > 16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
> > with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general 
> > nature
> > of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions.
> > The 
> > currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this 
> > regard.
> > 
> > 52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be 
> > conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in 
> > number of respondents between the result for this question, and the 
> > equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering
> > them to 
> > be property] suggests two things:
> > First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not 
> > (presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be 
> > trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes) 
> > Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's 
> > what 
> > they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of 
> > `ownership'.
> > 
> > 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be 
> > conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying 
> > trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular 
> > option in this poll.  
> > 
> > 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further 
> > confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.
> > 
> > 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the 
> > WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial, 
> > insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not 
> > currently available.
> > +++++++
> > This question is important enough to be reformulated and polled in the
> > Booth, where the comment line can be read by all.
> > 
> > I would prefer the question of geographic names to be polled separately.
> > 
> > You will get better answers then on the TM issue.
> > 
> > Respectfully,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
> > the Cyberspace Association and 
> > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > Elected representative.
> > http://www.idno.org  
> > 
> 
> 
> 
--
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