[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RE: Sunset for sunrise
I don't see the original message in my inbox, so I'll respond to the
At 12:55 10.05.2000 -0700, Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\) wrote:
> > Michael Graham: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 11:20 AM spouted;
> > Presuming as much (incorrect as I may be), I believe it is to
> > all parties' interest to establish a means for protecting
> > trademark owner and consumer interest in domain names which
> > incorporate or are "variations" of their trademarks.
As has been noted multiple times, there are cases where human judgment
is required as to whether a "variation" is infringing. Kodak vs Kodiak,
for instance. Therefore, it is in all parties' interest to not impose
a mechanical protection of "variations".
Still worse for "incorporation" - "tenNISSANdiego" is my pet example;
the Barnes Tennis Center would probably get a good laugh out of
a letter from Nissan telling them to cease and desist.
Mechanical rules for protection of variations or embeddings are'
impractical, unreasonable and indefensible.
Since your assumption that variations should be protected has been
abandoned by most of the participants who make their voices heard in
public on these lists, the case for Sunrise+20 that builds upon this
assumption cannot possibly be a basis for consensus in the WGs.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway