Re: Trademarks, random strings, sharing, reserved words

["Leo Smith" <barter@ntplx.net>]

I agree with your assessment of the need to recognize the rights of
trademark holders  to apply trademark protection to domain names.

However, I see no fundamental difference between 
A) a Domain Name as it applies to a name to be "published" and used for
business in conjunction with its Internet Site, and 
B) a dba or other business name as it applies to a name to be "published"
and used for business in conjunction with a telephone for a new business
requiring a new business name for which the new telephone number will be
listed in the directory managed by the local phone company.

Granted that there is a often, but not always, a difference in the size of
the market. with Internet being global and the business site of the new
telephone number being more regional/local, the principals of trademark
protection still apply to both situations. 

We don't find a 60 day waiting period imposed by the telephone company when
we request a new business name to be listed in the phone directory...and we
shouldn't find a 60 day rule on the Internet either.

If a trademark holder has a problem with a domain name...go to the court of
proper jurisdiction. Exercise your trademark rights till the cows come
home. 

But don't expect the 99% of Internet users who seek a domain name in
violation of no trademark to put their rights and interests secondary to
the rights of trademark holders, just so it becomes easier for the
trademark holder to assert a claim against the less than one percent of
Internet users who allegedly infringe.
----------
: From: Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>
: To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
: Cc: michael <michael@memra.com>; iahc discuss <iahc-discuss@iahc.org>
: Subject: Re: Trademarks, random strings, sharing, reserved words
: Date: Monday, January 06, 1997 6:00 AM
: 
: Kent Crispin wrote:
: >The real goal here should be to make domain names *completely
: >independent of trademark*, not establish policies that mix them in
: >that legal morass.
: 
: Unfortunately, IAHC does not have the power to make this pronouncement; 
nor
: does any other single entity that I am aware of.  It could only be done
by
: treaty among the nations of the world, which is a process that would take
years.
: In fact, even if a diplomatic conference were to be convened to discuss
such a
: treaty, the result you prefer would be unlikely, since the governments of
those
: nations would be asked to voluntarily subvert rights they have themselves
: created.
: 
: I am not at all clear, either, as to the benefit of severing any link
: between trademark law and domain names.  Trademarks are meant essentially
to
: create some order in the market place;  to create a reliable link between
a
: service or product and the source of that service or product, for the
protection
: of the consumer, who wants to know how to obtain good products and
services in
: the future and avoid bad.  Why is this less important on the Internet
than
: elsewhere?  In some ways, it may even be more important, because of the
relative
: anonymity of the sources of information on web pages.
: 
: Some have asserted that domain names are not trademark-like, since they
are mere
: addresses;  for example, a person cannot be sued for trademark
infringement
: based on the street name where he lives.  The difference here is that we
do not
: choose our street names, but we choose our domain names.  A domain name
performs
: an identifying function in two ways:  first, it is the string that
connects the
: user's computer with a desired web page;  second, it is often chosen to
reflect
: the content of the web page (we find the altavista search engine at
: "altavista.com", not at "12 Rheingold Ave.com").  It is the latter
function that
: carries trademark significance.  Domain names cannot be separated from
trademark
: law unless that latter function is given up (which is the argument for
going to
: pure number domain names, a possibility which is no longer considered
: realistic).
: 
: 
: >So, an "unlimited number of possible infringing domain names" is a
: >*good* thing for almost all trademark owners, because it makes it
: >completely and transparently clear that domain names really are a
: >different realm, so completely and transparently clear that reasonable
: >laws will be drafted and reasonable precedent will be established
: >regarding the relationship between domain names and trademark.
: 
: I don't see how it does this at all.  Is there any legal difference
between
: trademark law with respect to one TLD and trademark law with respect to
1000
: TLDs?  The only difference in my mind is the practical possibility of
trademark
: owners policing the space.  IMHO (and mine only), if the number of TLDs
is
: infinite, the only new laws that will result will be ones that require
: domain name registrars themselves to check for conflicts with trademark
(and
: other) rights before registering a domain name, and to make them liable
if they
: do not do so properly.  Remember that trademarks are nationally-created
rights,
: and if they are threatened wholesale, as such a proposal would do, the
national
: legislatures will impose legislation to protect that class of rights.  It
is one
: of the goals of the IAHC draft to prevent, to the extent possible, the
need for
: such intrusive legislation, and to reduce (not expand) the possibility of
: registry liability for trademark conflicts.
: 
: 
: Albert Tramposch
: WIPO
: IAHC member
: speaking very much on my own behalf
: 
: 
: 
: