DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [ga-udrp] Re: International TMs

  • To: NameCritic <watch-dog@inreach.com>, "ga@dnso.org" <ga@dnso.org>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] Re: International TMs
  • From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:02:44 -0700
  • Organization: Hi-Tek.com
  • References: <> <3B0BF609.6AC2D1F0@hi-tek.com> <008f01c0e3e2$73f935c0$bc3419d0@q0q2h5> <3B0C56B8.A7E1CF5B@hi-tek.com> <000001c0e408$71113bc0$283119d0@q0q2h5>
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org


I think that we should shorten our posts;>} but here is another long one.

NameCritic wrote:

> Face it. The Intellectual Proprty Constituency has pulled the wool over
> everyone's eyes. They have used the media, ICANN, the UDRP, and WIPO to do
> so. They have changed TM Law for online purposes without ever having to get
> any legislation passed. Gotta hand it to them. They pulled it off and now
> they defend their actions as if it was all legitimate and was done to
> protect the consumers. Yeah, right.
> Is that why the Intellectual property Constituency is fighting against the
> addition of both an Individual's constituency and a Domain Name Holder's
> Constituency? Do they feel it is in the user's best interest NOT to be
> represented or have a voice within the DNSO? Are we to just trust you to
> take good care of us? Is it that you feel you know what is best for us
> sheep?

You switched over here. You wrote to me but I hope you are referring to the IP
group as "you" here.

> Or is it you feel threatened by those that disagree with you? Do opposing
> opinions scare you? They should. We are not going away. What you did worked
> in the short term. In the long term the users will win. That is why you
> prolong this and work against the creation of an IC and IDNHC IMHO.

exactly where you are correct and we can begin to make a difference - especially
with the internet.

> Bottom up Consensus. Where is it? Tansparency of Actions. Where are they?
> Fairness. Where is it? Stability. Where is that? Unity. Where is it?
> Uniformity. Where is that?
> Those are all words used to describe the processes of ICANN, the DNSO, the
> Names Council, the UDRP, and WIPO. Why is it then we don't see those as
> examples of how this has all been done?
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

Right on!

I certainly hope that because I laid out what I see as some reality you do not
take that as my agreement with it at all.  Your argument regarding
classifications is right on point. If you have time visit the Tarr site you can
play for hours just figuring out classifications.  I think they just added a
couple. (for a guy with a degree in linguistic philosophy this is great fun)
The term Convis is used by every Convention and Visitors bureau in the USA, how
did SAn Diego get a trademark on it?  Check out the categories that Lego, as in
legoland are in - maybe they missed one, but they got all the rest.
MacDonalds is one of my favorites - how do you trademark a family/clan name that
has been around for over a thousand years? They gave marks on words with
-----smart and I am sure we recognize petsmart but now they deny that as simply
two generic words.

Just like the IRS, if you want to control by power and intimidation you create a
system so complicated that only you and your boys can understand it.  Look at
the history of the Christian church just before Luther and the Gutenburg bible,
only the priests could read and write and they even spoke in latin that no
dotcommoner could undersatand.  No sir the apple don't fall far from the tree.

I agree completely education and popular support is by far the best tool to
create a proper environment.
Shall we call it outreach?  This is why in the plan we are developing money is
to be brought in through the online public udrp and some siphoned away for


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> Cc: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 5:32 PM
> Subject: [ga-udrp] Re: International TMs
> > You have to be careful when sending me an email wherein you claim to make
> > arguments which are no more ridiculous than ....
> >
> > I believe to really understand international treaties and trademarks you
> need to
> > get into bilateral trade agreements first and then go to the WTO charter
> and
> > members. Then you have to take everything you just read and throw it out
> the
> > window. Real enforcement of foreign trademarks comes from a desire to do
> further
> > trade with the country which is the origin of the trademark.  The U.S. is
> the
> > largest open economy consumer in the world. If you want our trade you
> enforce
> > our trademarks.
> > The emerging economy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the U.S.
> have a
> > signed bilateral trade agreement that has yet to be ratified by both sides
> > congress/Assembly. Even before that goes into effect you can now get
> actual
> > effective enforcement of U.S. Trademarks there.
> >
> > Now you should know that the 62 page of text and the 62 pages of
> appendixes in
> > that trade agreemnent nowhere nohow mentions domain names. As a matter of
> fact I
> > do not remember a single mention of the word Internet.  But as someone who
> is
> > working on the internet policy for Vietnam I can gauran-damntee you that
> if you
> > try registering cocacola.vn when it becomes available to the outside world
> in
> > the next few weeks we will enforce any rights cocacola may assert to that
> name.
> > However I have a high level of confidence that if you register coke.vn you
> will
> > be able to keep it. They will enforce a true trademark but not bend over
> > backwards to pander to American mega-corps.
> >
> > My point is that you cannot apply logic, or even the rule of law to the IP
> > versus domain holder rights arena you need to apply economic power
> politics.
> > Here I believe a study showed that the vicious attacks and reverse
> hijacking of
> > fair names which may also be trademarked hurt the companies more in PR
> than the
> > name was ever worth. Public opinion does effect these big companies. I am
> > working with a group to design and market a UDRP which will be very public
> and
> > on an internet pro and con list type format.  The complaints and responses
> will
> > all be open to public comment, in fact public comment will be a factor in
> > determining the outcome. The judges and the "counsel" will be right off
> the
> > lists we all participate in. Shoot you may even be chosen as someones
> advocate
> > with Corliss, Williams and Walsh sitting as the judges and me as the
> opposing
> > advocate. Yes it will cost the loser a little money to help fund the site
> and
> > help developing countries provide IT schools.
> >
> > Sorry too long,
> >
> > NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Something I find interesting. I wrote to get an International Trademark.
> > > This is the response.
> > >
> > > "It is possible to seek an International Trade Mark Registration but as
> an
> > > American company/citizen, you would be unable to obtain such a
> registration
> > > because America is not yet a signatory to the specific international
> > > agreement. "
> > >
> > > Domain Names resolve addresses which are International in nature. If US
> > > Trademarks are not International Trademarks through the US'
> > > Non-participation in the Treaty, then how can Domain Names be infringing
> on
> > > said Trademarks. The Trademarks that do NOT have International
> Protection do
> > > not apply to Domain Names. Then it would go in order of importance.
> > > International Trademark, Domain Name, US Trademark.
> > >
> > > Some US Trademarks are infringing upon domain names and the trademarks
> that
> > > are too similar should be taken away and given to the domain name holder
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > > That argument I just made is no more ridiculous than the one US TM
> Holders
> > > make when saying they have a "RIGHT" to domain names that are similar to
> > > their US Trademark.
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>