Re: Responses to Responses

[Marc Hurst <mhurst@fastlane.ca>]

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Net Sales wrote:

For those of us not prcticing our trade within the provincial United 
States, a responce..

> This is Carol the, yes I am a lawyer, lawyer.
> Joseph Kim said in response t This is an area that is and will continue
> to be fought in the
> courts, as well as in the PTO (Patent & Trademark Office for those of you
> who aren't familiar with the acronym) and probably courts around the world.

I am sure that the PTO can mean many different things in many different 
countries...

> > Ivo Essenberg checked in with:
> >>Domains names are not an exclusive thing for COMPANIES ... non-profit
> >>>>organisations can have one, private persons can have one.
> 
> Yes and many, if not most, non-profit organizations (US spelling) have
> trademarks.  The Red Cross and the Olympic Committee (who have a super
> trademark in the US) come immediately to mind.

Would not that be the International Olympic Committee?
 
> He adds:
> >>Private persons still form the largest part IMHO. The fact that you hear
> >>about >>companies fighting over domain names is the fact that, in the US
> >>mainly, >>companies take ANYTHING to court.
> 
> Companies have more money and more at stake in fighting over domain names
> than individuals.  And, thanks for that really enlightened stereotype about
> Americans going to court.  Not true.  Never was.  And excuse me but there
> are court systems in all developed (and many undeveloped) countries.

You are observant . There are courts in many countries but in most like 
Canada and the United Kingdom you most pay as you play. It seems to 
make people really explore their facts before suing. I do know that 
SKYSCAPE is spending money right now to explore whether or not we 
will be filing suits in several jurisdictions against Name.space for 
infringing upon our registered copyrights.

> But don't presume that what you've heard from critics about Americans and
> courts is true.

No, I am an American citizen living abroad and I KNOW its true...
 
> And he also comments:
> 
> >>1. The Internet was working fine when it was an academic/research network
> Yeah with tons less traffic and way fewer people and opportunities.  Do you
> want to go back to that restriction?  (and the taxpayers supporting it,

Taxpayers? My government is giving me money to buy equipment and pull 
fibre between cities..

> without access-rick)
> 
> >>2. There are conflicts now because of the increasing commercial use
> Yes, sure will be.  There would be conflicts even without commercial use.
> We're dealing with people here.  And people generate conflict.

No, Ignorance generates conflict...
> 
> >>3. Laws will become necessary
> Yes, but who's going to pass them and who's going to enforce them?  See
> comments below of treaties which is probably as good as it's going to get
> internationally until and unless a true World Court exists.

Oh, I guess the Hague is just the name of your former Secretary of State...

> 
> >>5. The problem, IMHO, is that people try to apply national trademark laws to
> >>international resources. As long as we don't have international
> >>trademarks >>this is not a solution. (And don't tell me I'm bullshitting
> >>... some lawyers >>in the Netherlands have stated that all uses of marks
> >>on the Internet should >>conform to Dutch trademarks laws ... there are
> >>200+ countries on Earth ... >>should they all claim that, we would have
> >>international war)
> 
> Uh, and what about the trademark treaties that your country and the US and
> most of the rest of the world are signatories of?  There are no single set
> of LAWS covering trademark but there are indeed internationally recognized
> resources for dealing with infringement.  There are treaties so there won't
> be wars.
> 
> And from Michael Dillon:
> >>I could provide examples of government domain names, educational domain
> >>names, >>personal domain names and charitable organization domain names
> 
> Yes, and your point was?  So what.  Doesn't mean there are plenty of
> conflicts over names even if you exclude the ones that have no possible
> trademark implications.  Many of the organizations of the type you list,
> however, HAVE legit trademarks.  See comments above.  (see also the current
> fight between columbia university, columbia/presbyterian hospital, and
> columbia medical systems-rick)

Yes, but a properly described DNS model would eliminate confusion between 
say Hershey (Pa) city library and the Hershey Chocololate (Corp?) (even 
though they do share heritage).
 
> >>the DNS is a lot like the phone directory white pages. It is simply a
> >>>>directory in which you can look up domain names and get an IP address.
> This is actually a very good argument for using numbers instead of names as
> there are lots of unique combinations.
> 
> >>and even if there was it would be irrelevant. I'm sure that at one time
> >>most >>phone numbers were commercial due to the high cost of owning a
> >>phone. But >>eventually the cost became more reasonable and commercial
> >>phone numbers were >>outnumbered by non-commercial numbers.
> See comments above re: "commercial" -- it doesn't mean only money-making;
> it means lots of other things too.
> 
> >>They fight for them bnecause they do not understand that domain names are
> >>just >>addresses. Due to the warped coverage of domain names in the press
> >>and to >>NSI's misguided policies, many people have the mistaken
> >>impression that domain >>names are like trademarks. They aren't.
> 
> But they ARE.  Because they identify a product or person and give a way to
> reach that product or person.  That is EXACTLY what a trademark does.  It
> identifies the product or service.  That is indeed why there will continue
> to be fights over domain names.  Because the name represents the site.  And
> that is exactly what a trademark is.
> 
> >>Search engines rely primarily on the content of web pages to do their
> >>indexing.
> 
> Okay, so you go online and are looking for information about the newest
> Toyota truck.  Do you type "truck" into the search engine or "Toyota"?  Let
> me guess.  That is why the names are significant.  And say you're a regular
> surfer who is comfortable with the web and doesn't feel the need of search
> engines.  To find that Toyota truck, do you type in www.truck.com?  Or
> www.joeblow.com?  No, you type in the trademark for the truck:
> www.toyota.com.  That is why companies protect their names and are fighting
> for the domain rights.

And if you have the Ontario (Canada) Toyota dealers association and the 
Ontario (California) (both could be "on.ca" in the string) what do you do?
 
> >>Many lawyers are so immersed in practicing law that they lose the ability
> >>to >>understand the law in general. This is why we do not allow lawyers
> >>to make or >>enforce the laws.
> 
> Wow.  This is a really surprising comment.  Have you studied government?
> Political Science 101?  Okay, check out the former occupations of the
> members of Congress, the Senate, the President and the Vice President (not
> even counting the First Lady), and then tell me who makes laws.
> And then, go to a courthouse and watch the prosecutors and the judges at
> work, not to mention defense attorneys.  And then tell me who enforces
> them.

In Canada all of our judges are graduated up the bench on merit and 
seniority or are appointed by Provincial and Federal cabinets. They do 
not run for election as they do in the States. A popular landmark case 
that wins public support should not dictate the attitude of justice in 
any jurisdiction (ie- "the hangin judge" syndrome). In regards to 
lawyers making the best politicians that is a falacy. You dont have to 
look past Nelson Mandela, Jesse Jackson or even the longest serving mayor 
on earth (Mel Lastman) who has sat as mayor since the early 70s'in North 
York Ontario (a burb of Toronto) and one of the few cities in North 
America that continually runs a budget surplus from year to year (also 
one of the top rated school boards in the world).
 
> >>>carol forgot to mention that there IS caselaw, the most noticable being
> >>>>>warner bros vs. roadrunner.com, where the little guy actually won one!
> >>>
> 
> >>I thought that was settled out of court or withdrawn.
> 
> Maybe if you did your homework, or thought to ask people who know (like
> Carl who is on this list), you'd find out the real story.  Roadrunner won.
> I think it's being appealed but I'm not sure.  Carl?  I think you were
> discussing this on the TM list.
> 
> To all of you, do NOT assume this is an ISP issue.  It is, certainly, but
> not solely.  It's a business issue and a legal issue and it will be a long
> time before any part of it is cut and dried.  Try to look at it from all
> angles, not just the computer one.  What is important and irrelevant to you
> may be of the utmost significance to a businessperson or lawyer.  Know all
> sides.  Only then can you begin to make a real difference.

Ill sign off here.. I apologize profusly for the noise created here. 
Carol's ignorance of how things actually occur outside the United States 
is insulting to the rest of us. I am more concerned that Kim Loon Sing 
gets more of a fair shake in Singapore than Michael Memra gets in my own 
back yard... (sorry Mike)

Bottom line everyone seems to be ignoring the difference of culture that 
plays the biggest role in how disputes are resolved. I have had positive 
response from everywhere except the U.S. where everyone seems to be 
preoccupied with suing or being sued......

I wonder how long it would take to create an Internet government if it 
was hosted in any other country besides the United States.

Go ahead .... FLAME ME!!! Most outside the western hemisphere agree with 
me... Do you want the signee below representing the future of your trade 
as a status quo?

Maybe newdom@vrx.net is more effective...

> And please excuse any typos in the above or refer them to Joseph Kim.
> Thanks.
> Carol Cricow
> Wife of . . . oh you know.
> 
>   ------only two things that money can't buy;
>                  one is true love, the other is home-grown tomatoes------
>   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>    rick cricow                                        voice:541-484-7323
>    net sales                                            fax:541-484-3099
>    735 w. 7th ave.                                   orders:800-323-4463
>    eugene, or  97402 u.s.a.                    on the web:www.yujean.com
>   * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> 
>