[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?
At last year's annual meeting of the International Trademark Association, I
stated that the Internet is a unique phenomenon: It is a worldwide,
instantaneous communication system that is democratic and decentralized. It
should remain so and, as I said then, how the Internet community copes with
the issue of regulation and governance in dealing with problems such as
privacy, criminality, taxation and economic competition without jeopardizing
the Internet's essential character will be the fundamental challenge.
That said, I believe that you, and others, underestimate the economic value,
opportunity and importance of the Internet. The Internet has the potential
of significantly increasing productivity, reducing costs, and ultimately
improving the standard of living of all peoples around the world. Not today
or tomorrow, but in 10 years, maybe 25. One can glibly say that free speech
is paramount, but to most people in the world, and to their governments, a
decent standard of living takes precedence.
Commercial interests and other trademark owners will inevitably play a large
role in the growth and economic development of the Internet. Those who do
not accept that fact and are unwilling to cooperate in that development,
will have little influence in maintaining the character of Internet I
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ellen Rony [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 6:35 PM
> To: Hartman, Steve
> Cc: 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to
> Steve Hartman wrote:
> >In my judgment speculation in the trademarks of others unnecessarily
> >up the cost of doing business on the Internet and reduces the efficiency
> >the Internet, with no countervailing benefits.
> >A sunrise provision has the potential of appreciably reducing the number
> >cybersquatting opportunities and, in so doing, reducing the amount of
> >cybersquatter-related litigation.
> A sunrise provision for trademarks plus 20 variations turns the trademark
> owners into cybersquatters.
> Why should trademark owners, who are only one class of users on the
> Internet, be given such preferential treatment. How about people who want
> their given names as domain names. Would you favor giving every person a
> sunrise provision that he and she get theirfirst+last names before anyone
> else gets them during a 30 day sunrise provision. Does that sound fair?
> If not, why is it any different.
> On balance, the benefits of the trademark sunrise provision outweigh all
> other uses of the Internet and treat it as solely a commercial one. ..COM
> means communication, not just commerce.
> >On balance, this benefits of the sunrise provision outweigh free speech
> >hoarding concerns.
> >Steve Hartman
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Judith Oppenheimer [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:50 PM
> >> To: Hartman, Steve; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; email@example.com
> >> Subject: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?
> >> Importance: High
> >> Steve Hartman, Nabisco, says,
> >> "[The Sunrise Proposal] simply allows trademark owners the opportunity
> >> pre-empty speculators and cybersquatters."
> >> Cybersquatting involves infringement of trademark rights and is
> >> actionable.
> >> Speculating is legal and legitimate activity. Trademark owners have no
> >> legal right to infringe on speculators' activity.
> >> Judith Oppenheimer
> Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
> Co-author *=" ____ / firstname.lastname@example.org
> The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
> // \\ "Carpe canine"
> The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.