proposed change in IAHC proposal wording re 60-day period

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 10:26 AM 01/13/97 +0000, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

>On Jan 13,  9:41, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately it is not within anyone's power, not ISOC, not IAHC, nor
>> anyone else, to cause any particular top-level domains to "have nothing to
>> do with trademarks".
>
>I expect that if a specific trademark top level domain category is present,
>trademark disputes will be taken out of other gTLDs.

I suggest that this view is mistaken.  Exxon or Kodak or Xerox is going to
take offense at a domain name containing the trademark, regardless of the
domain that it is in.

>> 2.  Trademark infringement is specific to the trademark owner's goods or
>> services.  Hasbro's trademark rights are limited more or less to children's
>> games.  If the owners of clue.com and perfection.com had done searches such
>> as you suggest, they would have found the Hasbro trademarks, but would have
>> given them no further thought.  clue.com is a computer systems consultancy,
>> and has nothing to do with childrens' games.  perfection.com is a printing
>> company, and they don't print children's games in case you wondered.  So
>> the search you propose would not have helped them.
>
>I am not competent to comment on the validity of trademarks using such
>common words as "clue" and "perfection", although I doubt such trademarks
>would ever be allowed in the UK when using the regular trademarking
>process. Even then, the use of such common words make the trademark very
>weak indeed. However, a search by the original owners of the domains
>would have shown them an organge light, telling them "warning - trouble
>ahead".

Well, then the orange light you imagine will be on nearly all the time.  If
you pick at random any proposed domain name or trademark, and do a
trademark search, in general the outcome is that someone, somewhere, has
that trademark already.  Then what you find is that the existing trademark
is for fish and your proposed use is for bicycles.  Since fish don't have
much to do with bicycles (except in Monty Python, perhaps) then the
justified legal conclusion is that the proposed name can go forward.

>> >Furthermore, the false sense of security provided by the IAHC's
>> >60-day waiting period may prompt the original domain name owner to
>> >sue the IAHC (or whoever will run the registry) by arguing that they
>> >were assured that past the 60-day waiting period, their domain name should
>> >be clear of trademark conflicts. 
>> 
>> Neither the IAHC nor anyone else has made such assurances.  
>
>I quote from the document:
>
>quote> In further considering the existing operation of the ISO
>quote> 3166 second level domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the
>quote> administrators of these spaces add a fixed 60 day
>quote> notification period between application and delegation as a
>quote> means of reducing the subsequent levels of litigation within
>quote> these name spaces, as per the related recommendations in
>quote> section 4 of this document relating to gTLDs.
>
>"as a means of reducing the subsequent levels of litigation"  

Okay, then what makes sense is for IAHC to change this sentence.  It should
read, instead, 

In further considering the existing operation of the ISO 3166 second level
domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the administrators of these spaces add
a fixed 60 day notification period between application and delegation so as
to attempt to reduce the subsequent levels of litigation within these name
spaces, as per the related recommendations in section 4 of this document
relating to gTLDs.