Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF]

[igoldste@mum.neric.org]

Philip -
  I am in complete agreement with you.  My concern was that we do not 
expand the Mark holder's rights to the point that it steps on others.

  My concern is still one of granting Mark holders rights to substrings of 
their domain names.  If you look at http://www.gtld.com/dotinfocom.html 
Tom Barrett, CEO Netnames (one of the registrars for the new .info 
domain) states:

"The dot-info Registry will not provide preferential treatment among 
competing trademark owners that have a registration for the same
mark. Thus, the procedure is first-come first-serve for multiple owners 
of identical marks (i.e. United for goods Airlines and UNITED
for goods Moving Services)"

Which says to me that they are ALLOWING Mark holders to have a higher 
claim on a substring of their name than will be given to the general public.

Is this an area for DNSO to review?

--Ira

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Ira,
> I believe we are in agreement. My questions regarding coke.com and
> drinkcoke.com were only to exemplify the complexity. I agree with your Red
> Dog point. Avoiding unfair capture was within my stated objective
> 
> My suggestion for a common point of agreement stands:
> "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 or do they seek to
> pretend to be what they are not?"
> 
> Let's first agree to this objective before we explore strategies to reach
> it.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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