<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-idng] Recommendation 2: Confusingly Similar strings
- To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] Recommendation 2: Confusingly Similar strings
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:30:40 +0100
Hi,
Yes, but wouldn't it meant that same logic pertains?
a.
On 9 Dec 2009, at 18:07, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I didn't take Edmon's comments as you did. As you know the definition of
> confusingly similar was based on trademark definitions but that doesn't mean
> that TLDs are TMs.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Edmon Chung' <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wed Dec 09 11:51:54 2009
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] Recommendation 2: Confusingly Similar strings
>
>
> Edmon, I think you are implying that .asia is a trademark of dotAsia? While
> I completely agree with that, I believe your ICANN contract says otherwise?
>
> This is also an open issue in US and European trademark law, with the weight
> of authority to date holding that a TLD string can not function as a
> trademark. I think that authority has almost entirely focused on the
> significance of .com as a trademark, and is extremely wrong in the modern
> context of dozens, soon hundreds of new TLDs. But for now, it is what it is.
> It is certainly an issue that ought to be clarified in the DAG and the new
> model registry agreement, but of course is not unique to IDNs.
>
> I have filed a brief on the issue with the US trademark office if you wish to
> see it.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> 548 Market Street
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:16 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] Recommendation 2: Confusingly Similar strings
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Based on some study of the GNSO Final Report, it seems to me that we do not
> need any new policy for addressing the issue of application for a confusingly
> similar string by an applicant who is the registry (existing / future /
> proposed) of the source of that confusing similarity.
>
> In retrospect, at least on this issue, it was a good choice to have utilized
> existing legal framework and international treaties as the basis of
> "confusingly similar".
>
> While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me from the reading of that body of
> work/reference, that the concept of confusingly similar applies to that when
> used by another entity. If the application is from the same entity, then it
> is in itself not "confusing"ly similar.
>
> Perhaps, those who are a lawyer can correct me...
>
>
>
> So, I think we can propose a resolution for the GNSO to clarify this issue
> based on the following:
>
>
> While recommendation 2 in the GNSO Final Report states:
>
> Recommendation 2: Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing
> top-level domain or a Reserved Name.
>
> The detailed discussion on the recommendation includes:
>
> vii-xi) Extracts describing the concept of "confusingly similar". More
> importantly that they correspond to a mark being confusingly similar to
> another mark held by another entity, which would likely cause confusion, or
> to cause mistake, or to deceive. The key part being it held by another
> entity.
>
> xv) Detailed work continues on the preparation of an Implementation Plan
> that reflects both the Principles and the Recommendations. The proposed
> Implementation Plan deals with a comprehensive range of potentially
> controversial (for whatever reason) string applications which balances the
> need for reasonable protection of existing legal rights and the capacity to
> innovate with new uses for top level domains that may be attractive to a wide
> range of users.
>
>
> With the action item to either inform staff to include the item in the
> implementation (i.e. DAG), OR have an implementation team to provide specific
> directives to staff on the issue.
>
>
> Edmon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|