Return to newtlds Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: fnord
Date/Time: Wed, June 21, 2000 at 2:01 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: .reg

Message:
 

        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.

     

d_d@email.com - email without ICANN in Subject: line is blocked
Link: from cnet


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy