Re: .COM TLD, DNS and the English Language

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 03:33 PM 12/10/96 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote:

>I agree, my main thrust is to move these issues into each country and
>remove them from the international scene.  I agree that a .TM or some
>other schema may be appropriate, but I believe it to be appropriate only
>if it is placed UNDER each ISO country TLD.  International TLD's will
>only cause international disputes.  International disputes have no
>suitable method to be resolved.  Get enough unsatisfactorily resolved
>international issues and governments will get involved.
>
>Doesn't it make sense to eliminate iTLDs rather than to create them? 
>Doesn't it make sense to move disputes to local jurisdictions where they
>can be handled without international agreements?

Okay, help me out here.  A URL is a URL, right?  It seems to me that
<http://www.exxon.ch> would annoy Exxon just as much as
<http://www.exxon.com>.  I can't see how placing a domain name under an ISO
country TLD reduces the harm or the annoyance.  In either case the web site
operator, if not authorized by Exxon, is trading off of Exxon's good name,
passing off his work as Exxon's.

Or, to put it differently, a web site is worldwide in its scope and its
availability, right?  Suppose a US-only company, call it American Pride Flag
company, uses the acronym APF.   And suppose the APF initials are incredibly
well known all over the US, and is registered with the US Trademark Office.

Now suppose some company that is located outside of the US sets up a
parasite web site, selling counterfeit flags made to look like the flags
made by APF.  And their web address is ... well, it doesn't matter what it
is.  <http://www.apf.com.ca>, maybe.  Well, that web site is accessable to
every person in the US who has access to the Internet.  It is accessable to
every person in the US who has access to COM domains.  To the extent that
the site presents a trademark problem, it is the same (so far as I can tell)
as if the site had had a URL of <http://www.apf.com>.  

I can't see how tacking a little old ".ca" at the end of the URL makes the
trademark infringement go away.