Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF]
Constructing rules for IP protection is fraught with
difficulty. The objective I would suggest is to create a DNS
with low consumer confusion without allowing unfair capture of domain names by
trademark owners.
Members of this group have proposed identical name protection
only 'unitedcomputers.com' but not parts or sub-strings. I agree that a name
that splits into generics 'united" and 'computers' and losses contact with is
original form should not have protection.
But to then say no substrings is a little too purist and this
will be subverted by those who wish to be fraudulent or confusing.
If coke.com and cokelite.com would get protection, why not
drinkcoke.com and litecoke.com,
If pampers.com why not babypampers.com?
If sony.com why not musicatsony.com?
Surely what is important is the intent of the domain name
holder. Are they in good faith or bad faith? Do they seek fair DNS presence
(that may be coincidental to the names of others) or do they seek to pretend to
be what they are not?
Philip.
|