Re: Trademark problems and domain names

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Scott,

Scott Tadman wrote:
> 
> >From: Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>
> >
> >The gTLD-MoU trademark policy is meant to deal with the first real and
> >un-ignorable clash between the Internet and established law.  It is a hybrid
> >that tries to accommodate both worlds, and to make them fit together more or
> >less amicably so that the fit is not dictated harshly at a future time.
> 
> As you say, registering anything with a trademark embedded in it is a problem.
> While companies aren't going to get hostile if you name your workstation
> "msn" or "ibm", putting up a Web site (broadcasting) with "msn" or "ibm" in
> it will draw legal fire.

  How true!
> 
> There is no way to prevent trademark conflict on the Internet with respect to
> domain names. It is impossible. The trademark office has enough trouble as
> it is, and that is their job.

  Not sure about this, but my guess at least the Trademark Office surely
could not handle the problem presently.
> 
> The registry should not be held responsible if a trademark is violated and
> they were not able to prevent that occurance. All that can be done is a
> cursory check, at best.

  Exactly right!

> 
> It is the responsibility of the trademark holder to defend their trademark.
> If they fail to do this, their trademark may become worthless. Why everyone
> is so freaked out about possible trademark violations is a mystery to me.

  Yep!  To me as well.  But this was hashed over and over again in the
IAHC-discuss
list endlessly befor with no real resolution.  Still really is none.
> 
> >In fact, IAHC tried to find a way to "remove the main reason for the problem".
> >The only way to do that is to do away with mnemonic domain names altogether, and
> >go to pure numbers (like IP addresses).  Nobody seemed to like this (not to
> >mention the embedded-domain-names-software problem.)
> 
> The IAHC failed miserably because the problem cannot be solved. There were
> several truly inspired approaches to eliminating the problem, many of which
> actually came pretty close to achieving that goal, but all of which created
> way too many problems to be considered seriously (i.e. coke-4195.tm? Come on!).

  Yep!  I remember Oh too well!  
> 
> I can see two straightforward approaches to dealing with this problem:
> 
> 1. Admit it will be a problem, but don't let it get in the way. If there are
>    trademark violations, people will take action and it will be solved.
>    The InterNIC/CORE cannot and should not be held liable for allowing any
>    trademark violations to occur, any more than a photocopy shop should be
>    held liable for copyright infringements made by a customer using a
>    self-serve copier. Leave the legal stuff to the courts and lawyers.
>    This seems to be the current InterNIC approach.

  I see nothing worng with the InterNic taking this approach.  What
other
choice do they really have anyway.  
> 
> 2. Declare a domain name to be a sort of Internet Mark (IM). They are world
>    wide, and are issued on a first-come, first-serve basis (like trademarks
>    in countries).  As with trademarks, if you snooze, you lose. HMV (British)
>    lost their logo to RCA in the USA because they failed to register it there.
>    This was the Classic InterNIC approach, where anyone could register mtv.com
>    or mcdonalds.com and nobody could stop them or take the domain away.

  I like this idea (IM) mark.  
> 
> Many country registries operate differently. The CA registry is ruled with an
> iron fist. The qualifications are really quite strict:
> 
>    * If you are a sole-proprietorship operating locally, you get a domain of
>      the form yourname.city-town.province.ca (i.e. superweb.toronto.on.ca)
>    * If you are a registered partnership or provincial corporation, you are
>      eligible for a domain like yourname.province.ca (i.e. superweb.on.ca)
>    * If and only if you are a federally incorporated company, or you have a
>      nation-wide trademark, are you eligible for a SLD like yourname.ca. In
>      my experience, they are pretty strict about this, and there are few
>      ways around it.

  Esentialy correct.  
> 
> This is sort of a fascist variation on the InterNIC policy. Any trademark
> violations that do occur are also duplicated in the business registry itself,
> so the problem extends beyond the Internet, anyway.

  Very true.
> 
> If this was the way the whole Internet was run, I'd be preaching about eDNS.

  Hummmm?  Not sure what you mean with this comment.  Please elaborate.
> 
> >One thing that fascinates me about the vocal opposition to the IAHC process is
> >the absence of any serious alternative.
> 
> Strangely enough, the list at http://www.stop-gtld-mou.org/ is smaller than
> the list of potential registrars. Maybe they need more press.

  They do!  
> 
> --
> == Scott Tadman <tadman@martinet.com> ======================================
> == Martinet Development Corp. ========== http://www.martinet.com/~tadman/ ==

regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com