From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #64 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 27 2000 Volume 01 : Number 064 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:27:29 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements Roeland, On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > But, it is not entirely clear that the ruling would stand up in court > becasue they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs and SLDs. What are > they going to do, recind those status assignments? what TLDs have US trademarks that the tm owner is a registry? thanks, - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 10:46:11 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements I have it on reasobable authority that WEB is such a TLD. There are certain other SLDs that are also trademarked. In fact, many SLDs have actually been forced to change hands BECAUSE of trademark issues. I see no difference between an SLD and TLD here. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 10:27 AM > To: Roeland M. J. Meyer > Cc: 'William X. Walsh'; 'Christopher Ambler'; wg-c@dnso.org; 'Kendall > Dawson' > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > > Roeland, > > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > > > But, it is not entirely clear that the ruling would stand > up in court > > becasue they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs and > SLDs. What are > > they going to do, recind those status assignments? > > what TLDs have US trademarks that the tm owner is a registry? > > thanks, > > -rick > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:49:00 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements How about asking the applicant to identify competing interests in the same TLD, and a rationale for selection of the application? Jamie On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Kendall Dawson wrote: > > I've updated the list to include your suggestions: > > http://paradigm.nu/dnso/ > > If others have comments/additions/modifications - please send them in. > > > Kendall > > > ======================================== > Application Requirements (Working Draft) - 3/26/2000 > ======================================== > > General Information : Common Elements > > > Qualification of the Registry - > ---------------------------------------- > · Full name > · Mailing Address > · Phone and Fax Numbers > · Public Key > · List of directors > · Business plan > · Backup and disaster recovery plan > · Technical capabilities > · Description of network capabilities > · Description of telephone systems > · Description of computer systems > · Description of technical support > > Nature of the TLD - > ---------------------------------------- > · Proposed initial TLD > · Published TLD meaning or purpose > · Estimated volume of registrations. > · Would applicant run the root for the TLD? > · Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > · For-Profit or Non-Profit? > · Price and billing requirements > · Business and revenue model > · Chartered or Open? > · What are the restrictions? > > ======================================== > > Undecided Issues: > ---------------------------------------- > > Shared vs. Non-shared > > · Protocol(s) used for registration (SRP) > · Certificate authority (SSL) > · Directory, "whois" and Directory services > · Compliance to minimum software standards > · What reports are generated for registrars? > · How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? > · Service Level, and QOS issues > > Trademark Issues: > > · Name conflicts (UDRP) > · Protection for famous and well-known trademarks > · Centralized access to "whois" data > > Security Issues: > > · Stability > · What about business failure or bankruptcy ? > · Probationary phase requirements > · Audit/review process > · Minimum TLD SLA > · Physical security mechanisms > · Insurance and bonds > > ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 100 13:28:11 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > Please add: > > 1. Proposed initial TLD > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web Except that the USPTO says that TLDs are not trademarkable (if I read correctly) under their September-99 guidelines... Pity about that. It would seem to throw out the window anyone claiming to have (or wave about) a piece of paper with a trademark on a TLD... :-) From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm - --- D. Marks Comprised Solely of TLDs for Domain Name Registry Services If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for "domain name registry services" (e.g., the services currently provided by Network Solutions, Inc. of registering .com domain names), registration should be refused under Trademark Act §§1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053 and 1127, on the ground that the TLD would not be perceived as a mark. The examining attorney should include evidence from the NEXIS® database, the Internet, or other sources to show that the proposed mark is currently used as a TLD or is under consideration as a new TLD. If the TLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, registration should be refused under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §2(e)(1), on the ground that the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services. - --- Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:14:23 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > I have it on reasobable authority that WEB is such a TLD. There are certain > other SLDs that are also trademarked. In fact, many SLDs have actually been > forced to change hands BECAUSE of trademark issues. I see no difference > between an SLD and TLD here. The decision is specifically covering only the TLD portion, and no, .web is not a registered trademark according to the USPTO. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43m+f8zLmV94Pz+IRAt2NAKDMPQ264vDbXt6TxyqFT0su35PISQCg5PN3 6VV08mA0zsKzMkHprmvyZXw= =7JK5 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 100 13:32:12 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > I'm not talking about the TLD as a trademark. I'm talking > about the TLD as infringing on SOME OTHER trademark. > > Example would be .ibm - ignore the dot, and "ibm" is a > trademark, no? > > Regardless, the USPTO's guidelines do not have the force > of law, as I understand it. They're guidelines, unchallenged. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web But, unless I understand it wrong, it is the USPTO that decides what is or what isn't a TM in the US. If the USPTO says it isn't then it isn't. You can't go to a judge saying that someone is infringing on a trademark of yours and find that the USPTO says that it ISN'T a trademark, and expect to win... (unless you strike it lucky with a clueless judge). Hmmm... I wish I knew what the lawyers of IOD think of IOD (something along the lines of "we LOVE the money of IOD"). Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:47:57 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements You're missing a very key issue. Actually two. One of them is that this is an untested guideline. The second, I am not at liberty to discuss until after our litigation against CORE is completed. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: John Charles Broomfield [mailto:jbroom@manta.outremer.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM To: cambler@iodesign.com Cc: kendall@motif1.obs-us.com; wessorh@ar.com; wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > Please add: > > 1. Proposed initial TLD > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web Except that the USPTO says that TLDs are not trademarkable (if I read correctly) under their September-99 guidelines... Pity about that. It would seem to throw out the window anyone claiming to have (or wave about) a piece of paper with a trademark on a TLD... :-) From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm - --- D. Marks Comprised Solely of TLDs for Domain Name Registry Services If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for "domain name registry services" (e.g., the services currently provided by Network Solutions, Inc. of registering .com domain names), registration should be refused under Trademark Act ''1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. ''1051, 1052, 1053 and 1127, on the ground that the TLD would not be perceived as a mark. The examining attorney should include evidence from the NEXIS. database, the Internet, or other sources to show that the proposed mark is currently used as a TLD or is under consideration as a new TLD. If the TLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, registration should be refused under Trademark Act '2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. '2(e)(1), on the ground that the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services. - --- Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 12:49:37 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements >But, unless I understand it wrong, it is the USPTO that decides what is or >what isn't a TM in the US. If the USPTO says it isn't then it isn't. You >can't go to a judge saying that someone is infringing on a trademark of yours >and find that the USPTO says that it ISN'T a trademark, and expect to win... Well, actually, then you understand it wrong. I am prohibited from explaining our case to you (as I'm sure you understand). I honestly would if I were allowed to. I suggest you contact an attorney and ask if you're truly curious. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:07:10 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements Then your understanding is flawed. USPTO has only recently reversed itself to the position that you now wave before us all. They have made no commetary on cases and trademarks that were awarded prior to the recent reversal. Even you, John, must understand the grandfathering of prior standing agreements and registrations. Even you, can not be that obstinate, can you? The USPTO must first acknowlege that the prior position was in error and refund the fees and costs, plus contingent liabilities and expenses for allowing the registrations. Otherwise, the prior registration/contract stands, in spite of the new rulings. As usual, IANAL, don't listen to me, go find a lawyer, pay them money, listen to thier advice. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On > Behalf Of John > Charles Broomfield > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM > To: cambler@iodesign.com > Cc: william@userfriendly.com; wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; > kendall@motif1.obs-us.com > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > > > I'm not talking about the TLD as a trademark. I'm talking > > about the TLD as infringing on SOME OTHER trademark. > > > > Example would be .ibm - ignore the dot, and "ibm" is a > > trademark, no? > > > > Regardless, the USPTO's guidelines do not have the force > > of law, as I understand it. They're guidelines, unchallenged. > > > > -- > > Christopher Ambler > > chris@the.web > > But, unless I understand it wrong, it is the USPTO that > decides what is or > what isn't a TM in the US. If the USPTO says it isn't then it > isn't. You > can't go to a judge saying that someone is infringing on a > trademark of yours > and find that the USPTO says that it ISN'T a trademark, and > expect to win... > (unless you strike it lucky with a clueless judge). > Hmmm... I wish I knew what the lawyers of IOD think of IOD > (something along > the lines of "we LOVE the money of IOD"). > > Yours, John. > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:09:06 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The USPTO has not granted any Trademark registrations to TLDs Roeland. Not a single one has been approved. It isn't reversing itself at all. On 26-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > Then your understanding is flawed. USPTO has only recently reversed itself > to the position that you now wave before us all. They have made no commetary > on cases and trademarks that were awarded prior to the recent reversal. Even > you, John, must understand the grandfathering of prior standing agreements > and registrations. Even you, can not be that obstinate, can you? > > The USPTO must first acknowlege that the prior position was in error and > refund the fees and costs, plus contingent liabilities and expenses for > allowing the registrations. Otherwise, the prior registration/contract > stands, in spite of the new rulings. > > As usual, IANAL, don't listen to me, go find a lawyer, pay them money, > listen to thier advice. > - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43nxy8zLmV94Pz+IRAiP2AKCKS15kWjq9ab+dmjhNG8cFuaudJwCgvQ/J ytVKIpc/qkeE6xHuGOZxmCM= =Lxhh - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:47:22 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [wg-b] Creation of Famous List At 16:10 26-03-2000 -0500, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote: >[whois.alabanza.com] >Consumer Information Organization (FIBERSHIELD-NET-DOM) > PO Box 44232 > Washington, DC 20026-4232 > US > > Domain Name: FIBERSHIELD.NET > > Administrative Contact: > Russ Smith (RS11-BR) a@consumer.net > Phone- 703-567-2375 > Fax- 703-567-2375 Dear John: I'm confused. It looks as though you have found the new registration. I have checked both the NSI RegistraR and NSI RegistrY whois and get this bare bones response: http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=FIBERSHIELD.NET&STRING=Search http://www.nsiregistry.net/cgi-bin/whois?whois_nic=fibershield.net&type=domain Domain Name: FIBERSHIELD.NET Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS2.QUALIKOM.COM Name Server: NS6.QUALIKOM.COM Updated Date: 20-mar-2000 Where are the contact points? Where is the creation date? How did you get more data than is available from the web based whois? Regards, BobC, who believes in removing the additional names in the distribution list. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:59:44 EST From: Attyross@aol.com Subject: [wg-c] Re: Application Requirements > I believe the trademark office has already indicated guidelines to deny > TLD's trademark status. Basically, yes. Examination Guide No. 2-99, dated 9/29/1999. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm Otho Ross ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:03:40 EST From: Attyross@aol.com Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs ... Any specific examples of US registered trademarks that are also TLDs? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:21:24 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements The only thing I can point out to you is the trademark currently active for "my.web" I am constrained from pointing you in the right direction regarding any conclusions that you can/should/might want to draw. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Attyross@aol.com Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:04 PM To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs ... Any specific examples of US registered trademarks that are also TLDs? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 15:36:26 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is a second level domain. The USPTO's granting of a trademark for this domain does not lend any legal sanction or authority to the claim of the registry to this mark. There are many applications for .web domains as trademarks. Most of been either rejected, abandoned, or withdrawn. Several of them are new, and seem to have all been filed by the same 2 or 3 people. A small number appear to have been granted. But again, none of this has anything to do with trademarking a top level domain, and it doesn't infer any legal right to the TLD by the webtld.com registry. I doubt these .web domain trademarks would stand up to any serious challenge or opposition, and I really believe them to have been made out of ignorance, something that the USPTO admits they have when it comes to internet related trademarks many times. On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > The only thing I can point out to you is the trademark currently > active for "my.web" > > I am constrained from pointing you in the right direction regarding > any conclusions that you can/should/might want to draw. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Attyross@aol.com > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 3:04 PM > To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > >> they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs ... > > Any specific examples of US registered trademarks that are also TLDs? - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43p768zLmV94Pz+IRAk7RAKCymT/0tk3uCCjCCS8g7XI43Q9sCACfZg9Q rMUzX1eEwZw13nEOMqJh6wM= =sifq - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:24:16 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > William X. Walsh > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 1:09 PM > > The USPTO has not granted any Trademark registrations to TLDs > Roeland. Not a > single one has been approved. > > It isn't reversing itself at all. Excuse me William, prior the spate of September/October rulings, existing law allowed trademarking a string used as a DNS identifier. After those rulings, it was not. This constitutes a reversal, IMHO, even if the aforementioned was an implicit allowance. To counter this statement, you would have to show how the new rulings were either a "clarification", or allowing a new activity. I don't believe that you can show either. In fact, the new rulings explicitly disallowed a previously allowed activity, or registration. Again, this contitutes a reversal. What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a few TLDs, were granted trademark status. There is, functionally, no effective differance between them, except where they fall in the hierarchy. Previously allowed trademark registration are now disallowed from application as TLDs. Does this mean that no trademark-holder is allowed to use their trademark as their TLD? Alternatively, does this mean that, if a trademark-holder uses their mark in a TLD, that they lose their trademark rights? How does this reflect back on their trademark rights wrt their SLDs? This could invalidate very large chunks of the UDRP, if answered wrongly. The base-line issue is whether trademark law should apply to the DNS, or not. I know that the courts have already partially answered this, in case law. Thus far, we have been seeing very capricious and arbitrary rulings and activity wrt this issue. The problem is that, even in the DNS community, we do not seem to have any consistency, even within the same player. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:52:59 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a few TLDs, were > granted trademark status. You apparently missed the part where I said that no TLDs were granted trademark status. Not a single one. Everyone attempt has been rejected by the USPTO even before these policies were in place. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43rDr8zLmV94Pz+IRApSxAJ4zbodfbBKuIZI4ETVlTi35sQ+qCwCgmpp5 OrtUmiIbPlYLRy2S01A9Fes= =YEYI - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:02:48 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements You're welcome to your opinion. As I said, I cannot comment during active litigation. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:08:19 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements What is the source of your information? I have, at least one, flying the(tm) flag. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > William X. Walsh > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 4:53 PM > To: Roeland M. J. Meyer > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > > What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a few > TLDs, were > > granted trademark status. > > You apparently missed the part where I said that no TLDs were > granted trademark > status. Not a single one. Everyone attempt has been > rejected by the USPTO > even before these policies were in place. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE43rDr8zLmV94Pz+IRApSxAJ4zbodfbBKuIZI4ETVlTi35sQ+qCwCgmpp5 > OrtUmiIbPlYLRy2S01A9Fes= > =YEYI > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:43:19 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > What is the source of your information? I have, at least one, flying the(tm) > flag. You can cite an example of a TLD which has been granted a trademark registration by the USPTO? I'd sure like to know which one. Every one in the database shows either that the application was just made, was given its first refusal and is awaiting response, was denied/rejected final, or was abandoned and never completed processing. Remember we are talking about guidelines for registered marks here, not just claims of mark status. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE43srH8zLmV94Pz+IRAl/bAJ4vNaQ3UHsytZu9Q2DeQ2wv+DjEYQCgqHrg oGq3tOVxn54RnMCCXS3sI08= =TXo4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 22:06:26 -0500 From: Mikki Barry Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements At 4:52 PM -0800 3/26/00, William X. Walsh wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > > What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a few TLDs, were > > granted trademark status. > >You apparently missed the part where I said that no TLDs were >granted trademark >status. Not a single one. Everyone attempt has been rejected by the USPTO >even before these policies were in place. This is not true. Several were indeed issued. Here is one: Typed Drawing Word Mark .XXX Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: registration services, namely, assigning and recording addresses for computers on a public global communications network, and dispute administration services, namely, arranging for dispute resolution processes to settle disputes over conflicting addresses for computers on a public global communications network Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Serial Number 75225757 Filing Date January 14, 1997 Files ITU FILED AS ITU Published for Opposition May 19, 1998 Owner (APPLICANT) A Technology Company Inc. CORPORATION CANADA 18 King Street East Suite 1505 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5C 1C4 Section 44 Indicator SECT44 Priority Date November 25, 1996 Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:10:43 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements http://webtld.web/ Now will you answer my question? WHich database are you refering to? > -----Original Message----- > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 6:43 PM > To: Roeland M. J. Meyer > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > > What is the source of your information? I have, at least > one, flying the(tm) > > flag. > > You can cite an example of a TLD which has been granted a trademark > registration by the USPTO? I'd sure like to know which one. > Every one in the > database shows either that the application was just made, was > given its first > refusal and is awaiting response, was denied/rejected final, > or was abandoned > and never completed processing. > > Remember we are talking about guidelines for registered marks > here, not just > claims of mark status. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE43srH8zLmV94Pz+IRAl/bAJ4vNaQ3UHsytZu9Q2DeQ2wv+DjEYQCgqHrg > oGq3tOVxn54RnMCCXS3sI08= > =TXo4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 19:23:08 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements Actually, this argument, of Walsh's, is somewhat irrelevant. USPTO did reverse position (which Wlash failed to contest) and this constitutes a risk that prior trademarks, even common law marks, were effected by the decision and could claim a grandfather clause exemption from the new rulings. Granted, such a case would have to be argued in court. This would be a case by case argument and IANAL (Don't wanna be either, dot-com architect is *so* much more lucrative ). > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On > Behalf Of Mikki > Barry > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 7:06 PM > To: William X. Walsh > Cc: Roeland M. J. Meyer; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > At 4:52 PM -0800 3/26/00, William X. Walsh wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > >On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > > > What is also at issue is the fact that many SLDs, and a > few TLDs, were > > > granted trademark status. > > > >You apparently missed the part where I said that no TLDs were > >granted trademark > >status. Not a single one. Everyone attempt has been > rejected by the USPTO > >even before these policies were in place. > > This is not true. Several were indeed issued. Here is one: > > Typed Drawing > > Word Mark > .XXX > Goods and Services > IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: registration > services, namely, assigning and recording addresses for computers on > a public global > communications network, and dispute > administration services, namely, arranging for dispute resolution > processes to settle disputes over > conflicting addresses for computers on a > public global communications network > Mark Drawing Code > (1) TYPED DRAWING > Serial Number > 75225757 > Filing Date > January 14, 1997 > Files ITU > FILED AS ITU > Published for Opposition > May 19, 1998 > Owner > (APPLICANT) A Technology Company Inc. > CORPORATION CANADA 18 King Street East Suite 1505 Toronto, Ontario > CANADA > M5C 1C4 > Section 44 Indicator > SECT44 > Priority Date > November 25, 1996 > Type of Mark > SERVICE MARK > Register > PRINCIPAL > Live/Dead Indicator > LIVE > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #64 *************************