Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: panzer
Date/Time: Mon, March 26, 2001 at 10:34 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: .NAME's Response


        I am Georg Panzer, legal consel for Global Name Registry, Ltd. (GNR), the applicant for the .NAME top-level domain. Mr David Kam makes a number of claims with regard to the ICANN process of opening up the domain name space with new top-level domains. I will address the claims that directly involve GNR, particularly the claim that .NAME might violate pending US trademarks.

This claim was first brought to our attention on ICANN's public forum on New TLD Applications, which was closed on November 5th, 2000, but can still be read. We responded to that claim. We have not received any other communication from Mr David Kam, his companies, or his lawyers. We are unaware of the letter of November 7th, 2000 that he apparently should have sent us. We have also not received any reminders for not answering such a letter.

A search at the US Patent and Trademark Office made at the beginning of November last year, do not reveal that there is an application pending for the strings ".name" or "name" as Mr. Kam claims. There was however an application pending for "dot name dot name" (sic). This application was on behalf of the company North Pole of America. Other applications on behalf of the same company are: 
".music"; ".mp3"; "universal"; ".mail"; ".rtm"; ".chat"; ".info"; ".tel"; ".movie"; ".inc"; ".brand"; ".news"; ".shop"; ".nm"; "personal internet";and "dot name dot name" (twice dot name). All of these applications where submitted last year.

However, assuming that Mr David Kam has made an application for the
string ".name", we are still of the opinion that it would not be granted. It is a principle in trademark law that trademarks that are equal to dictionary terms should not be granted if they are descriptive of the goods and services they are supposed to protect. Further, if a trademark that is close to a dictionary term, it will only enjoy a "weak" legal protection vis--vis other similar uses
of that term.  In this regard I would like to point to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Examination Guide No. 2-99, which states in Section II.D:

"If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for 'domain name registry services' (e.g., the services currently provided by Network Solutions, Inc. of registering .com domain names), registration should be refused under Trademark Act 1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1052, 1503 and 1127, on the ground that the TLD would not be perceived as a mark. The examining attorney should include evidence from the NEXIS(r) database, the Internet, or other sources to show
that the proposed mark is currently used as a TLD or is under consideration as a new TLD."

CORE's trademark application for ".web" was e.g. rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office based on these guidelines. Further in Image Online Design, Inc. v. CORE Ass'n (US District Court - Central District of California), the district court disavowed the plaintiff's (Image Online Design, Inc.) claim to have common law trademark rights in ".web" as a top-level domain.

Even if The North Pole of America is granted trademark rights in the US, it will not necessary imply that these rights would be acknowledged in other jurisdictions. It is a well-known fact that the same trademark can co-exist with regard to different services/goods or in different jurisdictions. Mr. Kam is however correct when he states that a foreign trademark often have a special protection under the Paris Convention, in so far that the trademark can be considered famous. Mr Kam has apparently contractual agreements with several
ISPs, a claim that we have not verified. However, this fall under any
circumstance far short of what is considered "famous" in the legal sense of the word. "Famous" would be trademarks such as Coca-Cola, Ford. Disney etc.

The fact that the North Pole of America has several trademarks pending that are equal or similar to several of the proposed top-level domains is also legally relevant, since it indicates its motivation is to free ride, complicate and hinder bona fide applications for new top-level domains, such as GNR's
application for .NAME.

Based on the above, we are of the opinion that Mr. Kam's claims are unfounded. We emphasise however that we solely base our opinion on the claims put forward in this public forum, and that we have not received any elaboration on the claims from Mr. Kam's legal counsel.

Sincerely yours,
The Global Name Registry, Ltd./, Ltd.
Georg Panzer
General counsel




Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy