RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

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


-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:03 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; Kendall Dawson
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 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

I believe the trademark office has already indicated guidelines to deny
TLD's
trademark status.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
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/

iD8DBQE43ZoV8zLmV94Pz+IRAmjUAJ4hqojvSV88b3h9qtuEMfhaQBjodACfUEHT
QfKrx475JsdWlqD8IeqZDa0=
=MWiU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----