Re: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to explore a different option...

I think that we need to ask ourselves whether a TLD is
necessary if the same purpose can be accomplished at a
lower level.  For example, why not reserve "tm"
underneath .com so that we could have nissan.tm.com or
coke.tm.com?  The public would instantly recognize
that these addresses are those belonging to holders of
trademarks.  Does a trademark designation need to be
at the top level?  We have the ability to have a
registry reserve these lower levels, and they could
roll-out a program to enhance existing namespaces in
such a fashion.

I'd be curious to know whether VeriSign sees merit in
such an approach?

--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I prefer this also. As a simple consumer, sometimes
> i don't care about quality. But generally i do and
> have found through too much trial and error to rely
> on big name brands. There are many great studies
> reflecting this truth. So if my wife wants something
> i would know to click into this brand name TLD and
> find what i want and what will never get me in
> trouble (except maybe sizes and flavor). That is
> practical and effects our billion users and supports
> our IP interests and our thriving internet economy.
>    
>   Take it to the next step with Jefsey and Karls'
> conversation and all the internet will be chatter
> and simply conversations back and forth, in which
> arena, there are no trademark rights.
>    
>   e
> 
> Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>   I personally favour one clearly identifiable TLD
> for verified trademarks
> (call it .reg or .tm or whatever) and the whole
> world knows that's where you
> go to look for the official sites for recognised and
> established companies.
> 
> For all the other TLDs you remove the sunrise rights
> and trademark rights.
> 
> Companies who want to assert their trademarked
> identity, do so by publishing
> within .reg/.tm. They may also choose to acquire
> other TLD versions of their
> name and make them point to the .reg ending. The
> consumer, once educated,
> knows its the official site because it resolves to
> .reg.
> 
> If it's not .reg, if it doesn't point to .reg and
> resolve to .reg, then it's
> not the official site.
> 
> Of course, if someone acquires Pepsi.com and tries
> to pretend to be Pepsi,
> or defames Pepsi through it illegally, then by their
> illegal actions they
> should be pursued in the courts.
> 
> But the Trademark lobby should stop trying to hijack
> 1000's of generic names
> which is our shared language. They should be herded
> up onto the .reg
> enclosure and that should be where they live!
> 
> Where there are several companies in several
> countries using the same
> trademarked name, then the .reg registry should
> develop structures for
> handling that. But that problem of hundreds of
> 'Apple' trademarks around the
> world already exists at present and even the
> protective 'sunrise' mechanisms
> still hand out the domain name on what ends up as a
> first come first served
> basis.
> 
> Domains should not be regarded as Trademarks. Except
> that in a designated
> .reg / .tm enclosure, they may be recognised as
> representations of
> trademarks.
> 
> One day there will be 100's or 1000's of TLDs. Does
> Pepsi or Little Fred's
> Smalltime Corner Shop *really* want to buy their
> "Trademark" in every single
> one of those new TLDs?
> 
> Only the registrars would really benefit from
> that... which is perhaps why
> ICANN and the DNS supply industry uphold the
> Trademark/Domain Name myth.
> 
> Yrs,
> 
> Richard H
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Danny Younger" 
> To: "kidsearch" ; 
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks
> 
> 
> > Chris,
> >
> > Thank you for your comments. When we start coming
> to
> > conclusions about different possible TLD
> applications
> > (such as .trademark or a .xxx -- both of which can
> > raise the hackles of certain individuals) we are
> > utlizing selection criteria.
> >
> > That is what this whole week's discussion exercise
> has
> > been about. What differentiates a successful TLD
> > application from one destined to failure? What
> > criteria are new TLDs expected to meet?
> >
> > Unless we want an arbitrary and capricious
> selection
> > process for new gTLDs, we need to settle on the
> > selection criteria that applicants will need to
> meet.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- kidsearch wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think they need that Danny. First of
> all,
> > > domain names were never
> > > meant to represent trademarks.
> > >
> > > When you register a trademark, you have to
> specify
> > > the field that the
> > > trademark will be used in, such as
> "entertainment
> > > television show" "clothing
> > > and apparel" "automobiles", etc.
> > >
> > > A trademark gives you permission to use the
> chosen
> > > word or phrase to market
> > > your particular product. It does not give one
> > > ownership of that string of
> > > letters.
> > >
> > > An example "Nissan". You can argue all you want
> > > about famous marks, but if
> > > my name is Nissan and I want Nissan.tshirts as
> my
> > > domain in the tshirt tld,
> > > I not onle have the right to own that domain
> name,
> > > but I can also register a
> > > trademark, because it will not be in the same
> > > category as the automobile
> > > manufacturer's trademark.
> > >
> > > The simplest way to protect people's trademarks
> is
> > > to allow the creation of
> > > all types of tlds. So Nissan.auto or Nissan.car
> if
> > > registered by anyone
> > > other than Nissan, the automobile manufacturer,
> > > would easily be recognized
> > > as a trademark infringement, whereas
> Nissan.guitars
> > > would not be. There is
> > > also something to be said for car lots to be
> able to
> > > register the domain
> > > names Nissan.car or Nissan.auto if they sell
> Nissan
> > > cars. That is also not a
> > > trademark infringement IMHO.
> > >
> > > By creating specific tlds, it would be easy to
> > > protect your mark without
> > > giving trademark holders ownership of entire
> strings
> > > of letters that even a
> > > trademark does not give you legally.
> > >
> > > Trademark enforcement has been implemented on
> the
> > > Internet more stringently
> > > than it ever was pre-Internet. The USPTO only
> gives
> > > you "permission" to
> > > "use" that string of letters relating to
> marketing
> > > your product in a
> > > "specific" geographical area and it limits it to
> a
> > > specific category of
> > > product.
> > >
> > > When you apply for the mark, the contract does
> not
> > > say you "own" the string
> > > of letters. Nowhere in the USPTO agreement does
> it
> > > also guarantee you all
> > > domain names that contain that string of
> letters.
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com