ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

non protected TM.x.com vs. protected TM.xxx

  • To: allocationmethods@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: non protected TM.x.com vs. protected TM.xxx
  • From: JFCM <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:54:45 +0100

I am not sure I understand the TM protection scheme.
Did ICANN check no single letter TMs are protected.

I undestood that TM could only be protected at second level?
Since I suppose that "x.com" will be used as a substitute for ".xxx" will we get a "coca-cola.x.com" porn site?

Or will Coca-Cola have to buy 2304 3LDs to protect its name?
- all the coca-cola.0.aero to coca-cola.z.travel
- and xn--coca-cola.0.aero to xn--coca-cola.z.travel
- all the cocacola.0.aero to cocacola.z.travel
- and xn--cocacola.0.aero to xn--cocacola.z.travel

I am not sure how this simplifies the life of the users. But I am sure lawyers will enjoy battle between ibm.l.com and ibm.1.com and IBM.I.com registrants. I am sure alt-roots never conceived such a nasty scheme to show where making the DNS business may lead to.

I suggest that first we start with "o.com" and "0.com" for an initial six month test. Then that we run a review by an external expert.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy