ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 86 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: good ruling
    by Anonymous on Friday August 30 2002, @03:54AM (#8778)
    Glad to see the complainant gets labeled as a reverse domain hijacker. It's rare to see this happens, but it's good. Good Peter:)

    By the way, the USPTO assertion that TLDs have no source-identifying significance is not reasonable. I once submitted trademark application for productregister.com. My point is that they approved EC-productregister as trademark before. Why can't they approve my application for productregister.com. Since productregister is kind of generic, therefore, EC- must be the part that can serve in a large part the source identifier. Likewise, productregister.com should be approved for the same reason because .com here is unique. Yes, .com is not unique, but the combination produtregister.com is. There is only one productregister.com in the whole world (at least now). Use of .com here make the mark unique. Then the examing attorney does not take my arguement. Anyone should be able to get confused with EC-productregister and productregister.com. Obviously they are different. A first grader should be able to tell them apart.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    USPTO on source-indication of TLDs
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday August 30 2002, @05:24AM (#8789)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    I still think the USPTO opinion is sound where most cases are concerned. Properly, the .com (or other TLD) part of a domain address is merely a part of the addressing system, indicating such things as whether the entity is commercial or not, but not properly a part of the name of the entity in the real world outside the Internet. The naming of companies with ".com" at the end is one of the idiocies of the "dot-com boom" era that thankfully seems to have gone out of fashion since. In general, a company shouldn't trademark "BlahBlah.com" as their name, brand, and mark; they should trademark "BlahBlah", with the ".com" version merely being their address. I still shudder whenever I read an arbitration case or court decision that refers to "the famous mark BlahBlah.com", feeling like shouting back, "BlahBlah.com isn't a mark, famous or otherwise... it's a goddamned address!"

    However, I can see that there are special cases where the TLD is an essential part of a mark, where the second-level name by itself is a generic word, but with a particular TLD at the end it uniquely and famously identifies a site. There, trademarking the domain name in its entirety makes some sense, but in such cases the scope of the trademark accordingly should extend only to that particular domain name; a trademark on amazon.com shouldn't prevent the registration of amazon.biz or amazon.info, or give the trademark owner any special rights to those names in a sunrise period, since the other names don't match the specific trademarked name amazon.com -- the trademark owner would have to demonstrate rights to the name Amazon by itself to prevail against non-dot-com names.

    Construed in this narrow way, a trademark to a domain name, TLD and all, is mostly useless; it protects only against infringement of the exact name, but if the trademark owner already owns the corresponding domain name, then nobody else can use it anyway -- the trademark would only help in the rare cases where the owner accidentally lets the registration lapse or be transferred to a different owner and is trying to get it back, or where an alternative root operator sets up a conflicting domain.

    In cases where the trademark owner doesn't already own the corresponding domain, you have the situation as in this decision, where the trademark owner really got told off in strong terms by the panel.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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