Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
> "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> > The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the
> > Internet as it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast
> > majority of worldwide commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where
> > you have only one TLD (.net has never gained the same favor) then of
> > course you can only have one owner of any given name: your example
> > using "Sun" is a good one. While there can only be one "sun.com"
> > there are probably tens if not hundreds of entirely legitimate
> > owners of a trademark in the US alone of either the word "sun" or
> > some variant on it. Considering the world market -- which the
> > Internet is, we cannot and must not ignore that -- then the number
> > of rightful owners of the mark "sun" probably spreads to thousands.
> > More, in the case where an even more commonly used mark is used as
> > an example (please, no one respond that my figures are incorrect --
> > this is "for example" only and I am not meaning to say I have
> > researched the trade mark "sun" per se in all countries world wide
> > -- that said entering the search term "sun" in just the USPTO TM
> > database gives 6,820 "hits").
> Of course there are (partial?) solutions to these problems that do not
> involve UDRP or any other action involving registries or registrars
> and their customers, the Second Level Domain holders.
> ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only charter. Let
> WIPO administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register marks.net
> or some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains
> as they please.
> Anyone could create a search engine, or various companies could
> enhance their existing ones, to use a trademarks database.
> Given sufficient buy-in from trademark holders and good marketing,
> either a web site or a search engine could quickly become well known,
> the site everyone goes to for info on trademarked products. They might
> even make a bundle.
It has been suggested by many that a TLD for TM holders would
work. However, there still remains the multiple use of a mark vs the
unique naming in a TLD. There would have to be at least as many
TLDs as classes of goods and services.
Another thing that would help is to amend the Lanham Act in the
US, absolving TM holders from having to police marks in the domain
name system. If they are not obligated to do so, there is less need
for protection. In addition, if there were literally hundreds of TLDs
it would further reduce the mania for policing. It is ludicrous to
think that a TM holder should have a de facto right to all instances
of that mark in all TLDs, whether they are gTLDs or chartered.
The legal system is still the only method for potentially fair
adjudication of disputes.
IMO, the only way a UDRP could be fair would be to open it to all
domain name holders, not have arbitrators associated with just the
IP industry and make the choice of arbitrator mutual. The system
was designed by the IP industry for the IP industry to the detriment
of the public at large. It should either be totally reformed or
-- This message was passed to you via the
> email@example.com list. Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message). Archives at
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html