Re: [ifwp] Re: Domain name regulation

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

I said:
Prof. Mueller:
>
>I note that you refer to the owner of the micros0ft.com address as Vision.
>You indicate that you have been to the site.  In the interest of full
>disclosure, can you please tell us what is the trading name by the computer
>company promoting its services at micros0ft.com?  
>
>Do you have any idea why a computer company might use that trading name?
>
>Why might it use that domain name? Do you think it has assumptions about
>the connection between a trademark and a domain name?
>
>P.S. It is the case law in the United States that disclaimers do not
>mitigate confusion, especially of the type on the micros0ft.com site (which
>I encourage all of you to access).

In a message which appears not to be have been posted to the groups, Prof.
Mueller wrote:

"Do your own homework"

Ok.

I actually had already because when, im my personal opinion, based on my
reading of the Professor's postings, and his study, I have found that I can
not rely on his characterization of facts and events.  Take this case for
example.

We are told that a company named Vision owns micros0ft.com and that it is a
non-commercial site.  We are then told that the fact that Microsoft has not
protested is the "ultimate refutation" of the "trademark crazies."

Based on that characterization of things, the poster might get the
impression that this is one more anti-microsoft group with a parody site.

I accessed micros0ft.com immediately upon reading the post.  The largest
type on the page says MICROSOFT.  It promotes computer services (doesn't
matter if they don't charge).  This is a group using the name Micros0ft to
promote itself.  The disclaimer is at the absolute bottom of the page and
is one of the tiniest fonts I have ever seen.  

We are told that Microsoft complained against the last owner of the
micros0ft.com domain name and had it de-registered.  We don't know if it is
aware of the new usage.

The Professor spoke to the owner and based on his statement that Microsoft
had not contacted him, the Professor imlied that (1) Microsoft knew of this
usage (2) Microsoft acquiesced in this usage.  From there he made the leap
that this acquiesence refutes the "trademark crazies" position.

I gave him a chance to get first crack at those questions, so here goes:


In my humble opinion:

This is not delta faucets vs. delta airlines.

The owner probably picked the name MICROS0FT to trade under because it
wants to take advantage of the goodwill in the MICROSOFT name (everybody's
personal feelings about Microsoft aside).  If it's because of their hatred
of Microsoft, its an odd choice of name.  It sure isn't a parody.  

As far as confusion is concerned, it doesn't matter if people realize that
it isn't the real microsoft and then depart - the group gets exposure they
couldn't have obtained otherwise.

The owners probably picked the domain name micros0ft.com because the 0 is
next to the o on the keyboard.

The owner probably assumes that people believe that the symbol
"microsoft.com" signifies a connection with MICROSOFT brand goods and
services, which connection Micros0ft seeks to profit from.  It does not
have to be monetary profit for it to be actionable - this group is seeking,
among other things, support in their computer endeavours.

Again, I encourage the readers to view the site and make their own
conclusions.

And the owners of micros0ft.com should write in and tell us what they're
thoughts are.

Professor, if you actually saw the site and characterized this as a
non-commercial site and omitted to tell us about the trading name use, then
your post was misleading.  If you based your post on what the fellow told
you and didn't look to see yourself (strange since you called the guy),
then who didn't do whose homework?

So there are millions of trademark (and domain name) owners who bust their
butts to build equity in a brand and then there are guys who the world will
ignore unless they call themselves micros0ft.  You advocate that the DNS
should not accomodate trademark interests, but these are the kind of guys
who we should accomodate when organizing the new DNS.

Folks, if its ok to rip off Microsoft, its ok to rip off you.  And, based
on posts like this, Mueller will probably defend the rights of the people
ripping you off.  Why, I don't know.


At 01:18 PM 8/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Prof. Mueller:
>
>I note that you refer to the owner of the micros0ft.com address as Vision.
>You indicate that you have been to the site.  In the interest of full
>disclosure, can you please tell us what is the trading name by the computer
>company promoting its services at micros0ft.com?  
>
>Do you have any idea why a computer company might use that trading name?
>
>Why might it use that domain name? Do you think it has assumptions about
>the connection between a trademark and a domain name?
>
>P.S. It is the case law in the United States that disclaimers do not
>mitigate confusion, especially of the type on the micros0ft.com site (which
>I encourage all of you to access).
>
>
>
>At 12:38 PM 8/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>
>>> The worst case I heard of this was the guy who regostered
>>> micros0ft.com -it took MS months to find him, but, they *did*
>>> find him and turned him off.
>>
>>....And then it was registered by someone else!Vision Enterprises
>MICROS0FT5-DOM
>>5 W Kirkwood
>>Roanoke, TX 76299
>>
>>I have corresponded with Vision person in connection with my research.
It's a
>>noncommercial site and contains a disclaimer (this is not microsoft.com)
>and a
>>link to the Redmond-based software company. He says he has never been
>contacted or
>>challenged by Gates's corp.
>>Now this is the ultimate refutation of the trademark crazies. In some ways
>this
>>kind of domain name registration is their worst fear. But what harm is
really
>>being done? Is Vision enterprises getting rich? Nope. Haven't seen any
>IPOs for
>>them on Wall St. lately. Is Microsoft being hurt? Nope. No products are
>being sold
>>and there's a clear disclaimer. Do people flock to their web site because
>of the
>>name? Hah. Richard Sexton obviously hasn't even been there, and he lives
>on the
>>Internet.
>>
>>Microsoft is doing the wise and rational thing. It is ignoring him. Their
>stock
>>price hasn't plummeted, the world hasn't ended. Pretty soon the TM lawyers
>are
>>going to get it. Five years from now, we are going to be laughing about
>the fact
>>that we even had this domain name trademark debate.
>>
>>--Milton Mueller
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>>
>>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>>
>>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>>___END____________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>