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

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Would you be so kind as to approach this with a tie in that will fit in
nicely with the mandate of this wg.  I know it is there.  I would
even suggest that the UDRP must be one of the most negative factors in
getting funding and participation in DNSO and that the procedure of ICANN
as a whole is negatively impacted thereby.  Certainly a good working
definitive definition will lead to more consistent treatment.

Sincerely,

FRupp@aol.com wrote:

I agree...only their Name...no infringement entitlement / UDRP complaints due
to sub strings that include part(s) or all of their name / Mark due to the
commonness of strings of letters in words...or words within words...

Forrester Rupp

In a message dated 1/18/01 8:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
igoldste@mum.neric.org writes:
 
 

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.

 

begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard