Abril i Abril on ICANN's board

> Amadeau's message - which I read to be that ICANN needs a change in people in order to break the institutional inertia that has caused ICANN's collective corporate personality - strikes me as one that is very perceptive and very important.

On the contrary Karl, I would say it does not require great insight or somebody to be very perceptive, to see that the people at ICANN need changing.

> In addition, much of ICANN's hostility to the public has been fueled by certain of ICANN's contractors - such as, but not limited to, its law firm.

Concerning ICANN lawyers - I believe they know my opinion, that along with the ITMA bunch, they twist Trademark Law for corrupt corporations to abuse their trademark powers and for own financial gain.

As supposed people of good honour, they are most crooked and perverse - and should go on trial for perversion of Law.

Like the conmen and crooks, they do not want trademark domains identified as such - but for slightly different corrupt reasons.

I believe big business should not be allowed to flout the law.

You are welcome to argue against any of these facts - they were already known by authorities:

Fact 1: Virtually all words are registered trademarks - most many times over.

Fact 2: Because of fact 1, all domains names using any words are confusingly similar to trademarks.

Fact 3: Trademarks do not own the vast majority of domains.

Fact 4: The only way for user to identify that it is a registered trademark and prevent passing off - from the domain name, is if something was used to replace the trademark symbol e.g. protected .reg TLD.

Fact 5: The only way to prevent consumer confusion and trademark conflict - from the domain name, is to include classification and country e.g. apple.computer.us.reg - who else could they be. Simple is it not?

There is absolutely no restrictions or requirement to lose current domains for trademarks - .reg is additional - used for certificate of authentication and directory purposes.

Like stated - the authorities already knew all this. They have many experts to whom all this would be obvious - true or false?

Why does everybody think the trademark symbol was devised?

Why would anybody (other than crooks) not want trademark domains identified as such?

By crooks, I include corporate stooges who wish to overreach trademark by claiming world use of words.

As you know - a TRADEMARK is for specific use - a WORD is NOT for specific use - and yet trademarks get to steal all WORDS on the DNS.

Trademarks are identified by a symbol in the physical world - to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law. Is it not obvious - that something is required on the Internet to do same job?

However - you are forthright, honest and honourable person (and demonstrably so), do you not want trademark domains identified as such?

I certainly do not wish to offend you - but I have not heard you say anything in public about this.

It seemed to me that when we wrote to each other, in May 2000, that you were not very keen on the idea - was I mistaken?

Back then I was still wrongly using very early notes, which did not take into account the selling out of ccTLDs and SLDs in them (unlike .uk registry) - so had format name.class.reg.country instead of correct and most logical name.class.country.reg

You said:

> trademark classes are merely an administrative tool and are in no way a barrier to cross-category infringement.

As I tried to get over in my reply - you are wrong.

Quote: "Infringement is the unlawful use of a registered trade mark."

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/indetail/protect.htm

However, perhaps what you were getting at, they can go into other categories and register the mark for that use - providing they do not infringe into another’s trademark.

e.g. Apple Computers could not go into making cigars - they would infringe on Apple Tobacco.

So, to say trademark classes are not a barrier is not quite the whole truth - am I correct?

The change of use is possible under a protected .reg TLD.

> there are many kinds of marks that are not registered.

I was referring to registered trademarks - hence the use of .reg mark - why reg was logical choice.

Non-registered marks are separate issue - it is unlawful for them to use registered trademark symbol. However, even this problem can be solved.

> there are these "famous" marks that slop all over the landscape and their owners claim they own everything no matter what domain name layers might be wrapped around 'em.

As you know, when used to prevent lawful businesses from legal commerce - this is called trademark overreach. It is against Antitrust or Competition Law to do this - is it not?

> trademark people won't go for any partitioning of the name space unless that partitioning is done by real legislatures so that the trademark people can depend on the laws

As you know, the classification partitions are already there by legislature and trademarks have been placed in them. There is already law for passing off or infringement - is there not?

> they can't depend on ICANN's rules, hence they will register everywhere and will fight any utterance of the mark - they kind of are forced into it by the fact that ICANN can't put into place rules that will really let them sleep soundly and night thinking that their marks are safe.

I believe you are mistaken.

Corporations do not want to protect their mark - they want to stop other businesses that lawfully use the same or similar words to them - e.g. Caterpillar tractors claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet, even though many other businesses use the word - true or false?

This is unlawful practice - true or false?

Paul Mockapetris did not create DNS as a fatally flawed trademark system. He designed it for the function of naming resources - true or false?

ICANN and the US DoC are allowing corporations to steal the DNS.

The UK Patent Office, which registers UK marks, says, "Every trademark is distinctive from others or declared invalid."

So, a registered mark has to be unique - true or false?

The word is only a mark when used for specific purpose - true or false?

Apple Computers cannot prevent Apple Tobacco or the rest of the world from using the word 'apple' for any other purpose - true or false?

Sunrise unlawfully violates Antitrust and Competition Law, by giving priority to big business trademarks above small businesses without one - true or false?

All words belong to everybody (or nobody - whichever way you look at it) - and not one corporation or single person individually - true or false?

I cannot understand why Americans are not more passionate about the abridgement of words on the DNS.

Perhaps the First Amendment means nothing to them - they are not as patriotic as they make out.

Do I have anybodies goat yet ;-)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Perceptivity and Truth by WIPOorgUK

Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com