Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Mon, December 3, 2001 at 12:18 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: To expand (revised)

Message:
 

 
> First, there is no law that prohibits Apple Computer from opening a division devoted to selling apples (the fruit). It would not affect their trademark rights to "Apple" in the computer class.

I never said that it would.

> They would have no federal trademark protection for their fruit business (in fact, it would be a poor choice of brands to use for fruit because anyone could copy it, since "apple" is a generic term for the fruit of the apple tree). But not illegal.

This is because they would not be allowed it in the first place.

You have not heard of 'unfair competition' Law, then?

For one thing - Do you not think it injures competing businesses for just one to have the trademark name of the entire class?

For another - How would they stop others in same class from using that word - which they legally have to do?

For yet another - if their trademark becomes generic - they lose the right to it.

If you can point to one business that uses the WORD (not graphic) of its class, e.g. Science business using word 'science', then I will eat my hat and yours as well ;-)

> Second, the Afilias sunrise rules only apply to the initial sunrise pre-registration of .INFO names, and have nothing to do with their future ongoing use. Assuming a valid trademark was used to obtain a .INFO name, the registrant is not restrained in the future use of the name by the fact that it was registered under the sunrise rules. So Apple Computer can use APPLE.INFO to sell apples, or it can sell the domain name to the Apple Growers of America, or lease it to Bob the Apple Farmer, without breaking any law, or violating any Afilias rule or policy.  The fact that the name will be used for a purpose unrelated to the trademark used to first register it is immaterial.

This is what Spot was getting at.

UDRP and Sunrise is 'supposedly' to protect trademarks. They got the domain on the understanding that it was their trademark. They are not protecting trademark - if they sell it, are they?

Therefore, the only time they should be allowed to sell Sunrise domain, is when they sell trademark. That is if all this bull* about UDRP and Sunrise is supposed to be true.

> You may find such behavior an abuse of trademark rights, but it is not illegal and doesn't break any Afilias or ICANN rule.  In my opinion it is the whole sunrise process that was flawed, in that it gave holders of registered trademarks rights above and beyond those normally associated with ownership of a trademark (like the right to monopolize the use of a generic word).

You may be right, there does not appear anything in Afilias or ICANN rules to stop them selling on their 'trademark' domain.

We all know Sunrise was flawed - IMO it was designed that way, to maximise profits and allow trademarks to abuse powers of their mark.

I have no doubt, that corrupt people in authority will continue to abuse their powers also.

Oh ye of little faith:

It is obvious there is only one solution - a TLD to replace the registered trademark symbol.
 

Link: WIPO.org.uk


Message Thread: