Re: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry dude but wrong.
   
  I was nothing but a kid with a couple of degrees in philisophy, business and Law. This dude came into my skanky office and we agreed that there was no such place as "protection". Real men branded and fought hard to stay away from fakes. Even the Duke owned it until death. And i can smell a Lauren from a fake a mile away, not to mention the clean sweep of a Rolex. (i don't care if the man has designer cows outside of Telluride or is long dead) Courts are smart boy. And a headliner fake will be thrashed. But "Ford" (fix or redew daily) will not be mistaken for Ford dealers. Normal criticism and conversation on the net should be allowed and a place for genuine TMs given. (ooh lordy that will not be cheap)
   
  e 

kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          The problem is that it's unrealistic. No matter what rule you make on the net, companies will simply defer to the courts to protect their marks. So what you or I like matters very little.
   
  Their mark will be protected in a .tm or .reg as you suggested and then also in all other gtlds. By creating that tld, you just extend them yet one more tld they are also protected in.
   
  By doing something similar to the phone book designations or to the categories at the USPTO and similar orgs in other countries, you only give companies protection in the tld that matches their trademark, leaving the rest of the tlds open to others with similar marks.
   
  Richard mentioned apple. Apple.computer would be obviously protected for steve jobs and company. Apple.whatever would protect someone who had a mark for apple in the whatever category. and Apple.anything-else that isn't in conflict with a mark would be first come first serve.
   
  There is no other way to stop reverse domain name hijacking and protect trademarks.
   
  Chris McElroy, President, 
  Kidsearch Network
  http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
  http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
  http://www.RunawayTeens.org
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Richard Henderson ; Danny Younger ; kidsearch ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks
  

  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.
> >
> > Again, a phone book approach or a USPTO category
> > approach to tlds would
> > suffice to protect the "limited" rights that mark
> > holders have.
> >
> > .printers .pcs .stereo .cars .clothing,.etc. and
> > ICANN doesn't need to set
> > this up. Let the market do the talking. If there is
> > a need for .cars and
> > others, someone will create it and it will take care
> > of trademark protection
> > all by itself. Only famous marks would be protected
> > in .com, .net, .org and
> > other generalized tlds. All trademark holders would
> > be protected in the tlds
> > that are specific to the categories they hold marks
> > for.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > http://www.WhoLetTheBlogOut.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Danny Younger" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:20 PM
> > Subject: [ga] A TLD for Trademarks
> >
> >
> > > Interesting. In support of a TLD for trademarks
> > --
> > > From Frederic Wallenberg's "Short Paper 2":
> > >
> > > Excerpt: "I will first describe my general
> > solution
> > > to the issue at hand and will thereafter look at
> > > special considerations for famous marks. My
> > solution
> > > relies on four changes. First I will propose a
> > change
> > > to the domain name system to accommodate all
> > trademark
> > > holders. For this change to be useful, we need to
> > make
> > > changes to the domain name server infrastructure
> > and
> > > change some functionality in the browsers used by
> > web
> > > users. This change in turn will require some
> > change in
> > > user behavior to be effective. While the solution
> > > isn't without cost, it does have the opportunity
> > to
> > > solve the problem we're currently facing.
> > >
> > > Changes to the Domain Name structure
> > >
> > > The main idea is to allow all legitimate trademark
> > > holders (under any legal regime) to secure their
> > > trademark as a second level domain. To facilitate
> > this
> > > on a worldwide basis, it would be desirable to
> > have
> > > one unique TLD for trademarks."
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~fredrik/courses/cyberlaw/A%20New%20DNS.pdf
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

  

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


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