Leo Smith wrote to Carl Oppedahl
: >If we use the past
: >as a gauge, there are over 800,000 URLs registered under the .com TLD. Of
: >the 800,000 URLs registered under .com, less than 200 trademark
: >confrontations occurred.
To which Carl replied:
: NSI conducts its domain-name-cutoff hearings in secret and refuses to allow
: the Internet community to review the cases. How do you suppotr your "less
: than 200" number? NSI was recently quoted as saying there had been some
: 350 handled by NSI. And there are numerous others that have been in the
: courts and were not handled by NSI. This suggests that the correct number
: is more than double your number.
To which Leo replies: I spoke directly with INTERNIC's trademark section. The estimate of 200 was from a clerk working in the department, who described the number of URLs involved in trademark controversy as "extremely small". To verify the number, I have sent the following inquiry to Dave Graves, identified as responsible for trademark issues at InterNIC (daveg@netsol.com):
"Dave...my name is Leo Smith. I am on the IAHC discussion email group, and would like one piece of information to use in discussion regarding trademark protection for the proposed new top level domain names.
Question: Out of approximatelt 800,000 URL's for .com, approximately how many of those URLs have been involved in a trademark dispute during the past year?
In advance, I thank you for your response..."
----------
: From: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>
: To: Leo Smith <barter@ntplx.net>; IAHC Registries <iahc-discuss@iahc.org>
: Subject: How big the domain name risk really is?
: Date: Tuesday, January 07, 1997 6:04 PM
:
: At 02:41 PM 01/07/97 -0500, Leo Smith wrote:
:
: >> On Tue 7 Jan 1997, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
:
: >>Recall that one of the system goals (I would suggest, the chief system
: >>goal) is for URLs and domain names to be stable. Everybody seems to be
: >>eager to delete the following table in their responses, so for emphasis I
: >>will repeat it.
:
: >>Domain name Date registered date challenged
: >>clue.com June 1994 early 1996
: >>regis.com April 1993 mid-1996
: >>dci.com August 1993 early 1996
: >>disc.com January 1993 mid-1996
: >>juno.com December 1994 late 1996
:
: >>How would you like to be one of these domain name owners? How would you
: >>like to be minding your own business, not infringing anybody's trademarks,
: >>and then be told (two or three years out) that you are going to be put out
: >>of business because someone else wishes they could have your domain name?
:
: >To Carl Leo Smith posts:
:
: >Although your point is well taken, and it would be nice to eliminate the
: >problem, the issue come down to two questions:
:
: >1) Starting from the base of 100% of ALL URL users, what will the
: >percentage of users be, over the next 3 years, who actually experience a
: >confrontation with a trademark claimant?
:
: I estimate the number to be in the tens of thousands. Keep in mind that
: the cases that actually reach court are only the tip of the iceberg, and
: that for each case that is in court there are hundreds of others that reach
: the stage of a "cease and desist" letter or further.
:
: >Of the percentage of URL users who
: >do experience a confrontation with a trademark claimant, what percentage of
: >those confrontations will result in the URL user changing the URL, either
: >as a matter of settlement or as a matter of court order?
:
: Depends on what dispute model is followed. Under the IAHC proposal, I
: suspect that only those trademark owners with bona fide claims will get
: anywhere, thus reducing greatly the number of "merely covetous" claims.
: The percentage of claims leading to a changed URL will increase, but the
: number that we are taking a percentage of will decrease dramatically.
:
: >If we use the past
: >as a gauge, there are over 800,000 URLs registered under the .com TLD. Of
: >the 800,000 URLs registered under .com, less than 200 trademark
: >confrontations occurred.
:
: NSI conducts its domain-name-cutoff hearings in secret and refuses to allow
: the Internet community to review the cases. How do you suppotr your "less
: than 200" number? NSI was recently quoted as saying there had been some
: 350 handled by NSI. And there are numerous others that have been in the
: courts and were not handled by NSI. This suggests that the correct number
: is more than double your number.
:
: >That makes a ratio of one trademark problem for
: >every 4,000 URLs. Do you suggest that 3,999 trademark law-compliant URL
: >users should go through a 60 day wait in order to MAYBE avoid the trademark
: >confrontation of ONE URL user?
:
: I am not suggesting this. See my paper at
: <http://www.patents.com/nsi/iip.sht> to see what I suggest. I am merely
: trying to point out why the ISHC proposal is not nuts, and in fact serves
: the Internet community pretty darn well for a document prepared by a
: committee.
:
: But yes, I suggest that even if the ratio is 4000 to one, the waiting
: period is not crazy. Keep in mind that all 3999 of the people whom you
: suggest would be needlessly going through a wait, do in fact benefit, as
: each of them enjoys ownership of a domain name that is less vulnerable to
: reverse domain name hijacking than it would be in the absence of the 60-day
: period.
:
: >2) How effective will the remedy be in reducing or eliminating the problem.
: >Even if the need for a solution to the problem was sufficiently large to
: >warrant a remedy, the remedy itself has to be exactly that...a remedy to
: >solve or reduce the problem. Since no statutory provision exists stating
: >that a trademark holder looses all rights to the trademark as it applies to
: >the Internet URL if the tardemark holder fails to object within 60 days of
: >the notice, there will still be court cases.
: >
: >Carl suggests that the Courts might tend to hold trademark holders to a
: >higher standard of diligence if a 60 day rule were in effect. There are two
: >holes in that argument as it applies to the 60 day rule.
: >1) In order for the Court to hold the trademark holder to the higher
: >standard, the Court needs to make a finding, and in order for the Court to
: >make a finding, there has to be arguments presented by both sides to a
: >lawsuit. So in order for Carl's prediction to be true, a suit has to filed
: >first before the Court can make a ruling.
:
: It's always that way. Only after a few court cases will people come to
: know how courts will decide cases, thus permitting them to settle their
: disputes along the lines of what the court would do.
:
: Might as well refuse ever to change anything (standards for Social Security
: disability coverage, speed limits, noise limits for small yappy dogs) on
: the grounds that we don't already have a court case making clear what will
: happen after the change. Of course the court case that interprets the
: change can't happen until after the change.
:
: >2) In many instances the URL user may not be as deep pocketed as the
: >trademark holder. As a result, when faced with a trademark confrontation,
: >the URL user may elect to settle by withdrawing the URL, thus eliminating
: >the cost of litigation. In reaching the out of court settlement, however,
: >the URL still changes and the "Stability" for that one particular URL is
: >nonexistant.
:
: Well, again let me point out that the 60-day period *helps* such
: impecunious domain name owners. The domain name owner who has somehow
: survived the 60-day period unscathed has a much lower likelhood of being
: sued precisely because the 60-day period had already come and gone. And as
: a result it is less of a vulnerability to have little money.
: