[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Brand Names That Are Not Allowed To Be Used In Advertising
I think you have something there, Ms. Aguilar.
Why, I recently read that America Online is selling the domain name aol.com to Time Warner for quite a bit of money.
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Hope Aguilar <email@example.com>
To: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Brand Names That Are Not Allowed To Be Used In Advertising
> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:
> > Moving on to some practical aspects, and getting beyond this "free speech"
> > distraction....
> > Does anyone have any practical suggestions on what to do with trademarks that
> > are not allowed to be used in connection with advertising in many places?
> > For example, what is the point of allowing cigarette companies the right to
> > pre-emptively register their domain names, when they are largely forbidden
> > from advertising their product anyway, and none of them has had the cojones to
> > test whether that rule applies to the internet?
> > I've checked the registration for such terms as winston.com , camel.com, and
> > doral.com, and none of them belong to the "right" people. I personally smoke
> > a pack of Camel Lights each day, and I can't even find anywhere on the
> > internet to buy them.
> > What the sunrise provision does is to ensure that R.J. Reynolds will have
> > priority in the word "Camel" over someone who wants to sell camels - you know,
> > that funny animal that spits.
> > Now, Muhammad's Camel Lot cannot get a registered trademark for the word
> > "Camel", so he can't pre-emptively register the word "Camel" as a domain
> > name. R.J. Reynolds, on the other hand, would be crucified if they actually
> > used their registration for "Camel" cigarettes to sell them on the internet.
> > But you can bet that they are going to "protect their brand" by making sure
> > that you aren't going to find any dromedaries at camel.anything. Now THAT
> > makes a world of sense.
> > As a matter of fact, you can't get a trademark registration for any term which
> > is generic for those goods and services.
> > So what the sunrise provision does is to set up a domain name system where the
> > generic names of goods and services are LESS likely to have any correspondence
> > to a domain name.
> > That reduces the communicative value of the internet. If I want to look at a
> > camel, then it makes sense for the domain name to have something to do with
> > camels. Why should a special right be granted to someone who is not even
> > allowed to advertise their product under that brand?
> > I'd walk a mile for an answer to that one.
> I know you know the answer! The communicative value of the Internet WILL BE
> preserved. The communication will, however, go to the highest bidder.
> The seller of the generic domain name, "Camel" will not be some anonymous "John
> Doe" who was lucky enough to think of the generic word first; it will be R.J.
> Reynolds. Besides, why should common people have such benefits automatically
> conferred upon them?
> Corporate trademark holders of the world have been forced to pay for lobbies to
> protect and enforce their interests on the Internet. Remember, John what the TM
> holders are preventing is the "LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION" of their products with
> actual generic things. Thus, in the interest of protecting netizens from being
> deceived, R.J. Reynolds will hold twenty-one generic domain names ("Camel," plus
> twenty variations like "Camels," "CamelDrivers," "CamelPack," "PackOfCamels,"
> and the like) which they will then sell to the highest bidder through special
> domain name brokers at www.sunrise-plus20.com.
> This way, R.J. Reynolds' trademark is protected.
> M. Hope Aguilar
> Gazillion Interactive (310) 556.1875
> 1925 Century Park East
> Suite 1050 Fax: (310) 556-3180
> Los Angeles, CA 90067-2701 email@example.com