[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-europe] Recommended Reading: Brad Templeton on ICANN and the DNS
- To: Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com>
- Subject: Re: [icann-europe] Recommended Reading: Brad Templeton on ICANN and the DNS
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:50:07 -0700
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>,icann-europe@lists.fitug.de
- Delivered-To: icann-europe@angua.rince.de
- Delivered-To: mailing list icann-europe@lists.fitug.de
- List-Help: <mailto:icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Id: <icann-europe.lists.fitug.de>
- List-Post: <mailto:icann-europe@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:icann-europe-subscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- Mailing-List: contact icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <20010712103633.A15624@sobolev.does-not-exist.org> <3B4D8985.1C268C95@ix.netcom.com> <20010712113135.B24567@main.templetons.com> <3B4E1A6B.35B83C7D@ix.netcom.com> <20010712130142.J24567@main.templetons.com>
Brad and all,
Brad Templeton wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 02:45:15PM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Well from what I can see New.net's TLD's are not generic for the
> > most part. Yes they do have a few that are. But the majority are not.
> > However TLD's are not trademarkable as aren't generic terms.
>
> I think we're using a different definition of the word. ALL the new.net
> TLDs listed on their home page are generic. That means the term has
> an inherent meaning related to its function. They have a TLD of churches
> and it is called ".church" -- that's generic to the extreme.
>
> If I wish to create a directory of churches, and I call it "The church
> directory" that is generic. I can't get ownership rights in that name,
> nor should I be able to. Anybody is allowed to call their directory of
> churches a church directory.
>
> If I create a directory of churches called "Brad's Church Directory" that
> is a brand name, and I can get ownership rights in it. Nobody else can
> call theirs that. This, by the way, is true even of other people named
> Brad. Trademark law has established this rule because the word "brad" has
> no inherent meaning when it comes to church dirctories, and it's first-come
> first-served when that's the case.
Ok I understand your meaning. Yes we did have a difference there. >;)
>
>
> New.net's home page says the exactly wrong thing: "Now you can get names
> that are truly descriptive of your business, site or offering."
???? How is this wrong in your opinion? Just curious...
>
>
> That's exactly the opposite of what trademark law teaches us. You can't
> get ownership (trademark) of a name that is descriptive. Yet new.net
> is advertising that it will sell you such ownership.
I believe this is intentional. But you would need to ask the New.Net folks
to be sure. However, I believe as I think New.Net does that Trademarking
a Domain name is inherently wrong. As such, I believe that New.net, as
I said, is using generic TLD's mostly for this reason so as to make
UDRP filings difficult if not impossible and TM disputes/filings also
even more difficult, yet still provide for a company to have it's
web presence and conduct ecommerce business or whatever they
decide they wish to do with their Domain name. We [INEGroup]
view this as beneficial, even though the ICANN BoD and staff are
strongly opposed to this approach.
>
>
> ICANN is taking the same course with TLDs like .museum etc. It's saying,
> when it comes to internet names - the names that count these days -- you
> can get complete ownership of something like "history.museum" if you're
> the first to register it. And since .com is well established as meaning
> commercial, we've all see the crazy thing that happen when somebody gets
> ownership of something like drugstore.com, when in fact nobody should have
> that. The word "drugstore" should never have been for sale.
Yes but the cat is out of the proverbial bag so to speak (Referencing
the "Drugstore.com" example). Ergo, the TM folks have little recourse,
but ICANN has decided to edict policies in registration contracts to
prevent this sort of thing, and are now moving to modify the UDRP
to cover these sorts of situations. We find that intrusive and frankly,
after the fact.
>
>
> Trademark law was wise, and has a lot of history to it. It's not perfect,
> but it's much better tested than anything out there.
Yes I am well trained in TM law. However, the Lanham act (US)
never envisioned the internet not to mention DNS and Domain Names...
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de