Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cyber-cynic
Date/Time: Wed, November 1, 2000 at 12:05 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Objectivity is better than sarcasm

Message: 		 

 
This
quote ...
Sir, are you a lawyer? I am not, but I have paid some very good ones a lot of money for their opinions. Your opinion doesn't agree with theirs, and is worth exactly what I paid for it: zero.
...unquote
does not achieve anything. Why fan passions? Just stay cool and exchange views we might all learn something.

Oh just one more thing on this if I may - in legal cases there are normally 2 opposing lawyers, and usually only one wins. What value does that place on the losing lawyers opinion? - food for thought.

In any case, I decided to go and look at a few things myself and basically I have an answer to my own question which started this thread.

The question as I recall was something along the lines of would there be a law suit on ICANN's hands if they were to allocate the .web registry to someone else since IOD has a trademark sign after .web on their web site.

The answer in short is : not likely - let's not forget this is my opinion and I am entitled to it and since this is a related public forum it is appropriate to express that opinion here.

For those who are interested and would like the benefit of my research which leads me to this opinion here it is.

You cannot trademark .com ergo you cannot trademark .web. Any application to the trademark office would not even be considered. This opinion has been expressed by the trademark office and is published on this web site as part of the judgement. Here is the extract :

---------------------------
b. The Patent and Trademark Office Specifically Disallows Registration of Trademark of a gTLD.

Similarly, although it is not evidence, the Court is mindful that the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO) declines to interpret a TLD as indicating source. In its Examination Guide No. 2-99, the PTO specifically states that

When a trademark [or] service mark . . . is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance. Instead, those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its address. Today, advertisements for all types of products and services routinely include a URL for the web site of the advertiser. Just as the average person with no special knowledge recognizes "800" or "1-800" followed by seven digits or letters as one of the prefixes used for every toll-free phone number, the average person familiar with the Internet recognizes the format for a domain name and understands that "http," "www," and a TLD are a part of every URL.

United States Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, Examination Guide No. 2-99, Marks Composed, in Whole or in Part, of Domain Names (Sept 29, 1999).
------------------------

The thought process ..

Did IOD apply for the trademark? Probably not.

Was IOD granted the trademark? Definitely not.

Then how did IOD get the trademark? They didnt really, they just claimed it and conferred it upon themselves.

How do you know that. Read the judgement - it says so.

Can I do that too? Of course not silly, to get a patent or trademark you actually have to file an application and have the Patent office grant it to you.

But then how come they have it on their web site. H'mmm could it be displayed illegaly? Could be - heck maybe I was looking at the law suit thing from the wrong end, maybe IOD has to watch out for a law suit.

OK let's get to this judgement thing.

What happenned? The case was summarily dismissed.

Are you sure? Read the judgement here it is :

quote ...
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Because Plaintiff may not prevail in an action in which it has no trademark rights, the case is dismissed.
...unquote

You can read the whole thing elsewhere on this site.

Mr Amber says the case is under appeal. I wish him luck but reading the arguments contained in the judgement is is difficult to see how IOD can win if their case hinges just on the trademark claim.

There is no trademark. There will never be a trademark for .web. Unless they have more to offer it will be a perpetual uphill battle.


I am not a lawyer, and yes my opinion might also be worth zero to everyone else, but the beauty life is - I don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion.


Lawyers grow fat and rich on our hopes dreams.
 

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy