Friedrich writes: >Trademark conflicts are the major
issue.<
I would argue that the need for new domains and their number is perhaps
a larger issue, but TM conflict is right up there. If it isn't dealt with properly
this time it will still need to be dealt with next time, and depending how it is
dealt with we could have more of a mess in future. And it has the potential to get
uglier, see link at bottom if it works. A 40% increase in US TM applications this
year. Yikes. Will that mean a similar increase in disputes?
>They can only be solved,
if trademark holders (and I am holding trademarks myself) have to register their
trademarked domain names in clearly identifiable gtlds as .tm, .reg or .1 (one -
worldwide known trademarks like CocaCola). No one else is admitted there.<
Yes.
Instead of trying to opt out those who don't belong, which is and will be an ongoing
problem and never a true solution, having an opt in model seems far superior. How
does a cybersquatter, or even someone innocently and accidentally, register a name
in one of those domains? It wouldn't happen, and in the case of TLD or second level
domains that are clearly named, it would aid both the consumer and the TM holder
wishing to be found. BTW .tm is the existing ccTLD for Turkmenistan so short of changing
it it's not available. It is a two letter TLD in any case, I think we should try
for longer more descriptive names which also won't be confused with ccTLDs, some
of which are counterintuitive as it is.
>But no trademark protection regarding
all other gtlds (.com, ...)should be kept. They were not created for that purpose!<
Agreed,
they weren't, but stuff happens. The net evolves. What I would like to see is that
the collaborative co-operative model that largely built the net not be lost. We don't
need a competitive adversarial system over domain names but that is what we have
now.
I disagree with 'no' trademark protection in other gTLDs, if someone is truly
cybersquatting, intentionally registering a TM to benefit from it in some fashion,
I think the TM holder deserves protection. Under US TM law they have little choice
but to fight TM dilution. I do think it should be limited to the actual word, not
normally just something 'confusingly similar' because you can't quantify that. And
non-commercial and non-competing use should be a near absolute protection against
a dispute being filed.
>I am sure ICANN is responsible enough to consider this.<
I'm
not so sure but I am optimistic or I wouldn't bother posting.