Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF]

[igoldste@mum.neric.org]

I believe that by substrings "United Computers" would not be entitled to 
"unitedcomp.tld" or even "nite.tld" (from uNITEd).

The issue you raise might better be described as superstrings (This is 
an example of where we need translations into other languages for full 
participation).  

Philip, you ask "If coke.com and cokelite.com would get protection, why 
not drinkcoke.com and litecoke.com...?" If we allow the holder of a Mark 
(Registered, Trade or Service) to have control over superstrings of 
their Mark we are going down a dangerous path. One that may be 
restraining both commerce and speech.  

Regarding commerce, "Red Dog" is registered in Canada by Molson 
(TMA437884).  If they are given control over any string containing "Red 
Dog", then would "Red Dog Bar and Grill" be allowed to register a domain 
using their name?

Regarding speech, would the Mark holder be allowed to block 
"dont-drink-red-dog-and-drive.tld"?

While the Mark holder should have a right to protect it's mark from 
confusion, I do not feel that it should be given greater rights than 
anyone else for non-confusing superstrings.

--Ira Goldstein

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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.=20
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html