Re: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

As .TM already is a TLD, I believe your suggestion is not a good
business
decision respective to predatory business practices laws, for Verisign.

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827