> So books can only be written by the famous and people / small
cannot use what words they wish.
Of course not and commonsense should always previal.
Trademark violation ultimately comes down to issues such as passing off or riding
on the coattails of a trademark that I don't own for my betterment. If I were to
write a book called Apple about Apples, then no problem. If I were to write a book
called Apple and have a picture of an Apple Macintosh on the cover, then problem.
People do make unauthorized books about places, people
> and businesses you
Yes because they are probably non-famous generic words or common law trademarks.
What about all these other JT trademarks in the USA and
> the rest of world?
they were as famous as Japan Tobacco, especially if that mark was well known in Japan,
then they would have won the case if they were the first to bring it to the WIPO.
Other factors would have come into play if the mark was not so well known.
important to note that probably one of the reasons why a name like JT.com was registered
by the respondent in the first place is because the term JT (whether through a style
or a wordmark) had been brought to notoriety at a great deal of expense by the complainant.
One of the criteria for a URDP challenge to fail is the justified right of the respondent
to a domain name. Such a right can be proven by just describing a simple business
idea or usage for the name. In this case, this was not even asserted by the respondent
through their failure to respond.
Let's say that JT was a well known abbreviation
for say, Japanese Turtles and the respondent was a marine biologist, then this assertion
would have made the case a lot more complicated, if not completely foiled it, for
> The use of the phrase "unjustifiable profit" is prejudiced
> is it not?
You'd have to ask them about that one.
> What is the
difference, say, to buying and selling baseball cards,
> currently at prices
up to $1.265 million? (grade 8 Honus Wagner).
The difference is that registrants
often don't have the rights to the names that they register; many are trying to get
as much traffic as possible by registering names that other companies spent a great
deal of money establishing. If registrants have no bad faith and are honestly trying
to set up a site for a coincidetally similar textual string, then they probably won't
be successfully challenged. Accordingly, if it's a non-famous generic, then it's
also a lot more difficult, if not impossible for the Challenger. The high premium
prices asked by respondents are often used as evidence by the Challenger that the
respondent had bad faith in regards to exploiting the name that they have registered,
and point towards the fact that they had no intention to develop the domain into
an actual site whatsoever. By itself it's not a determining factor of bad faith because
getting a profit for the least amount of expense possible is at the cornerstone of
capitalist economy - but that viewed with other immediate material facts (such as
lack to develop a site and intial reasons for registering that particular domain)
are viewed and placed into context.
> They are not 'so-called' common words
- they ARE common words.
What I meant was most of your examples were not single
words but mostly two words placed together which formed distinctive trademarks that
the complainants had rights to and the respondent could not prove they had rights
> Nobody can 'pass-off' as coke.drink.us.reg
> so why is it a 'problem'?
if all the other TLDs are still being registered then a new TDL (.reg) doesn't solve
the 'problem' of businesses still registering domain names that individuals want.
not sure what you believe the reason trademarks were 'invented' to be, but essentially
it revolves around business protecting brands and names that their business rely
on to generate sales and ensuring that competitors or opportunists don't erode these
marks or use them to their own benefit, without having spent anywhere near the resources
that the rightful owners have. Without these protections, many businesses would fail
(I could manufacture my own version of Coca-Cola and put it into an identical looking
can and sell it at half the price, thus destroying The CC Company's sales) and major
economies would be ruined.
Domain caselaw has just extended this protection online
- it's not a perfect system in its execution - but it is a fundamentally necessary
one. I'm sure you could extrapolate what would happen if anyone was given free reign
to register whatever domain name they wanted.
Finally I'd just like to say that
I recommend you read each individual case carefully before using it as an example
of big business trampling over the little guy - most cases are carefully considered
and facts are analysed as a whole. It seems that you (like a lot of people) are essentially
opposed to trademarks having the rights that they currently do. That's fine, and
you're entitled to your opinion and a lot of what you say has merit in legal equality.
However, I have responded a lot to your questions, comments and conjecture and
I feel now like I can't respond to your questions without either going around in
circles, or trying to justify the reasons why we have trademark laws in the first
place; such common law exists because it is in the best interest of everyone - even
the small guy - and without it our economy as a whole would suffer.
I'm back at
work on Monday and don't have the time nor the inclination to justify every trademark
policy here, so please understand if I don't specifically respond to your posts in
Of course, voices such as yours are still important, as without them
capitalism and democracy do not work, so I trust that you will continue to let your
opinions be heard.