[ga-tm] Re: [process2] Athens or Athens or Athens.com?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [ga-tm] Re: [process2] Athens or Athens or Athens.com?
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 23:15:30 -0700
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <email@example.com> <3AE8CC29.3CC0BB70@boalthall.berkeley.edu> <3AE8D8BA.522AAACA@hermesnetwork.com> <3AF21B15.FA5260AD@boalthall.berkeley.edu>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Resent form Wipo2 list:
Holger Paul Hestermeyer wrote:
> Sorry I answer so late
> > What if someone with a geographic domain name put it up for auction BEFORE any other party showed
> > an interest? For example: http://www.america.com/
> Then, if WIPO enlargenes the UDRP, they would take the DN away from you.
Well of course! Why didn't I think of that? (Sarcasm intended)...
> > And what exactly constitues the "fair market value" of a domain? who decides?
> Actually as far as I know it WIPO will take the name if
> 1) You offered to sell it first
> 2) you ask for more money than you paid to get it
Well at LEAST these two conditions are true, yes.
> > > Probably what makes WIPO address the problem of geographic names is that there is a risk of consumer confusion (because by now it seems everyone accept the idea of domain names being names rather than addresses).
> > Ah, but then we get into the issue of publishing and copyrights. If I have a geographic domain, it is
> > probably because I was the first to register it. In other words, I *created* it as a name in the DNS,
> > whereas before me, it did not exist in said frame of reference. So, do I own the name or not? If I don't
> > how can any other entity claim priority over my first use in the DNS? After all, every country has their own
> > ccTLD. If I were looking for a national governement agency (whether municipal/federal/state/provincial) would it not make more sense to look them up under their ccTLD? So, what ipso facto rights does ANY level of ANY governement have over a gTLD, especially one that is based on a commercial charter like .COM?
> The copyright issue is quite interesting and I never thought of it. Under current US copyright law, though, whatever you want to copyright needs a minimum threshhold of creativity - this is only a very tiny threshhold, but catchwords do NOT make it, so even though you created the domain name - it is not copyrighteable (and it is even LESS copyrighteable if you did NOT create the
> word. "Athens" for example is not copyrighteable - it is not creative to use that word at all).
Yes I believe you are speaking to "Coined Terms" here?
> > > Although US law does not regulate this consumer confusion, other legal systems do. Now the question remains: What does WIPO want to do? As I read it in the interim report at least for now they realized the problem and did not recommend anything (although then turning around and developing options that do contain recommendations is somewhat bizarre).
> > It is a transparent and ridiculous ploy at this stage. ccTLDs which are under the control of national regulatory bodies are the only logical home for "geographic indications", especially considering the ocurrence of replicated names (i.e. Athens, N.Y., Athens, Greece, etc...).
> What strikes me is the following: Why not get rid of all the gTLDs or realign them under the ccTLDs like Britain does (e.g. .co.uk). That way we would not have all those terrible problems, every country could handle the problem according to its own traditions and we wouldn't have everybody complaining that the new standards are different from the old ones (even though it may
> sound cynical, I really mean it).
Well this has already been challenged by WIPO, so no go here.
See: http://wipo.org.uk/ for more details...
> > > As far as Sotiris' problem about several places sharing one place name goes that is not disturbing at all: Ever noticed that only one company with "United" in the name can get www.united.com? The problem is one that already existed for the trademark issue and the solution will be the same. For people with identical claims to the name it will remain first come first served.
> > So, are you saying that the first reverse domain hijacker for a given disputed domain with several claimants has more rights to it than the *creator* of a domain, as well as any others who might have any claim to it? Sounds like a den of thieves to me. How does that old saying go... "There is no honour among thieves."?
> Well, if you "create" the name mcdonalds.com you deserve no merit whatsoever - you started the thieving. If you have 7 people with a claim to a book and an 8th person has it, neither of the 7 taking it is a thief. How we solve the problem among the 7 people is a different issue, that is impossible to settle. That this issue is hard, though, does not change the fact that the 8th
> person has no right whatsoever.
Exactly! But that is not how WIPO and the UDRP panel might see it....
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-tm" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html