Re: IAHC Proposal encourages domain name speculation? (was something else)

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 02:47 AM 01/14/97 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:

>At 10:43 PM -0800 1/13/97, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> At 9:26 PM -0800 1/13/97, Alan Sullivan wrote:

>> >OK - Simple question:

>> >If I register a name - and wait 60 days - will this protect my name from
>> >being claimed by any owner of a trademark of that name?
>>
>> 	The intent behind the proposal, as I understand the legal aspects
>> at their simplest, is to create a basis for developing the relevant case
>> law to that effect, yes.
>
>So the reality of this is that the IAHC has created a way to encourage
>domain name speculation, with case law being created to support it
>legally.
>
>[sigh]

Please define your terms.

The only court cases on this so far in which the outcome was a domain name
changing hands, are ones where the trademark being asserted was *unique*,
held by only one company worldwide.  Actmedia, panavision, intermatic.  You
can search all the countries of the world and find that in each case, the
word is a coined word, not found in the dictionary, a word that only one
company uses to identify its goods or services.

The IAHC proposal does not encourage that sort of speculation.  A court is
going to throw the book at someone who speculates in a coined and unique
mark such as this, regardless of waiting periods or anything else.  But
such trademarks are only a tiny fraction of a percent of all trademarks.  

Now let's turn to the rest of the world of possible domain names.  Someone
registers "clue.com" for computer consulting.  Later a maker of children's
games (one of which is called "Clue") decides they want the domain name.

Is that speculation?  I don't think so.  It is simply that in a world of
first-come first-served, the first to register "clue.com" happened to be a
computer consultant rather than a maker of children's games.

You could say the same about "juno.com", where the first to register was an
email service provider, and the tardy one was a maker of light fixtures.
Speculation?  I don't think so.

Yet in each of these cases, the second-on-the-scene had no apparent
embarassment at trotting in after a couple of years and trying to get the
domain name taken away from its owner.

The IAHC proposal would tend to compress such efforts to the first 60 days.
 It would tend to reduce such efforts in the years to follow, after the 60
days was up.   Does this encourage speculation?  I don't think so.