ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[wg-review]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF]


Constructing rules for IP protection is fraught with difficulty. The objective I would suggest is to create a DNS with low consumer confusion without allowing unfair capture of domain names by trademark owners.
 
Members of this group have proposed identical name protection only 'unitedcomputers.com' but not parts or sub-strings. I agree that a name that splits into generics 'united" and 'computers' and losses contact with is original form should not have protection.
 
But to then say no substrings is a little too purist and this will be subverted by those who wish to be fraudulent or confusing.
 
If coke.com and cokelite.com would get protection, why not drinkcoke.com and  litecoke.com,
If pampers.com why not babypampers.com?
If sony.com why not musicatsony.com?
 
Surely what is important is the intent of the domain name holder. Are they in good faith or bad faith? Do they seek fair DNS presence (that may be coincidental to the names of others) or do they seek to pretend to be what they are not?
 
Philip.
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>