Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Wed, August 22, 2001 at 11:26 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: My 'aim' is to prove them all corrupt

Message:
 

 
Not one single person has given logical reason why this belief is wrong.

Quote from my posting of May 22, 2001

http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?newtldagmts;3B0A21AE000001C1

AOL Time Warner took aimster.com from the legal owner, on the premise it was protecting its own trademark.

Aimster includes “aim” - an AOL trademark.

There are 345 “aim” trademarks in the USA alone.

http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk

To claim to be protecting own trademark, it has to be your unique trademark - else yours is not distinct from others of same name - which is illegal.

Nearly every domain “infringes trademarks” or “confuses users” - because of the authorities, it cannot be helped.

It is just bull* excuse used to steal domains.

*** end quote

Trademarks abuse their marks.

The LAW is just used to protect the rich and corporations.

The US Government give you the finger, for your First Amendment Rights.

JUSTICE is just a word they hide behind - as can be seen from their spin, lies and propaganda.

They authorities know the solution - name.class.country.reg

Redirecting .com (.info .biz etc) to the .REG address will avoid 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' problems and to stop anybody 'passing off'.

e.g.

apple.com redirected to apple.computer.us.reg

and

apple.biz redirected to apple.record.uk.reg

No 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or 'passing off'.

.REG acts as certificate of authentication and directory.

If a person gets apple.info - consumer is not redirected to a .REG site - so NO problems.

THE US GOVERNMENT DO NOT DENY THEY KNOW THIS SOLUTION.

Quote from USPTO (August 22, 2000), "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."

To my logical and informed mind this proves them corrupt, beyond all doubt.

What do you the Jury say?
 

Link: WIPO.org.uk


Message Thread: