Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.

[FRupp@aol.com]

IMHO 

If DNs are subject to UDRP for TM infringments or dilution...then...the Act 
of Registration of a DN (could) constitute First Use in Business of a Common 
Mark, and and also create IP rights, thus it becomes Property (of a type to 
be determined)...and then it is up to the Registrant to go thru the process 
of Trademarking the Use of the DN for his Business.



In a message dated 1/18/01 2:00:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
terastra@terabytz.co.nz writes:


> 22:36 17/01/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >I would appreciate any comments, corrections, or points of dissension with 
> >respect to the above analysis of my findings.
> >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >          Hermes Network, Inc. 
> >
>
> HelloSotiris,
>
> Thank you very much for running this poll.
> I filled it in myself, but I replied to many questions "other" because I
> felt that the questions were not sufficiently unambiguous, or they were
> leading.
> For example the question: about conflating DN's Trademarks and Geographic
> locations.I
> ++++++++
> n answer to the question: 2. Should the issue of trademarks and geographic 
> indications be conflated with Domain names?
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) considered that domain names should be conflated
> with trademark issues.  Of course, what is unclear (due to the general 
> nature
> of the question) is the degree of any such conflation, and its conditions.
> The 
> currently available data is not sufficient to base any conjectures in this 
> regard.
>
> 52.00% (13 respondents) indicated that domain names should not be 
> conflated with trademarks and/or geographic indications.  The similarity in 
> number of respondents between the result for this question, and the 
> equivalent result in question 1 (above) [i.e. in support of considering
> them to 
> be property] suggests two things:
> First, that although domains were considered to be property, they were not 
> (presumablybut not necessarily by the same people) considered to be 
> trademark-type property by a traditional majority result. (i.e. 50+1 votes) 
> Second, it leaves open the questions of what type of property (if that's 
> what 
> they are) domain names should be considered to be, as well as the issue of 
> `ownership'.
>
> 16.00% (4 respondents) indicated that domain names should sometimes be 
> conflated with trademarks/geography.  This indicates that applying 
> trademark law in some, but not other instances, was a relatively unpopular 
> option in this poll.  
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Don't Know" option, indicating further 
> confusion regarding the ultimate or conditional status of domain names.
>
> 8.00% (2 respondents) chose the "Other" option.  If anybody on or about the 
> WG *volunteers* the fee for the "comments" results of this unofficial, 
> insecure poll, I would be happy to comply in presenting any input not 
> currently available.
> +++++++
> This question is important enough to be reformulated and polled in the
> Booth, where the comment line can be read by all.
>
> I would prefer the question of geographic names to be polled separately.
>
> You will get better answers then on the TM issue.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
> the Cyberspace Association and 
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> Elected representative.
> http://www.idno.org