[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure

Jay and all,

  Good points and they have been enumerated many times in the past.
It appears form the WIPO RFC-3, however that WIPO is not in
agreement.  And that is indeed unfortunate, as they seemed to
have by in large missed the point entirely.  Nothing new there

  It now appears that the only resolution to these inconsistencies
will need to be settled in the courts as well as with new law.

  We view this eventuality as the single biggest threat to Internet
self regulation.

Jay Fenello wrote:

> This exchange highlights the problems existing
> between Trademarks and Domain Names, and it frames
> the debate over adding new gTLDs.
> On one side of this debate, you have the Trademark
> community.
> In their attempt to completely protect a Trademark
> from any infringement, real or imagined, large
> trademark owners have been attempting to "lock
> up" their name in every conceivable permutation.
> Continuing the example used below:
>         pizzahut.com   pizzahut.org   pizzahut.net
>         pizzahut.to    pizzahut.nu    pizzahut.co.jp
>         pizza-hut.com  pizza-hut.org  pizza-hut.net
>         pizza-hut.to   pizza-hut.nu   pizza-hut.co.jp
>         etc.           etc.           etc.
> And if there were 10 permutations to a trademark
> (i.e. pizzahut, pizza-hut, etc.), and there were
> 250 or so TLDs, then these large trademark owners
> would have to register 2500 domain names to
> protect their mark.
> Continuing this line of reasoning to the absurd,
> if there were 100 sub-domains per TLD that *might*
> be confusing, these same interests would want to
> "lock up" those names as well.  For example:
>         pizzahut.restaurant.com   pizzahut.food.com
>         pizza-hut.restaurant.com  pizza-hut.food.com
>         pizzahut.restaurant.to    pizzahut.food.to
>         pizza-hut.restaurant.to   pizza-hut.food.to
> Doing the math, if there were 10 permutations,
> in 100 sub-domains, in 250 TLDs, then these large
> trademark owners would have to register 250,000
> domain names to protect their mark!!!
> Under this scenario, every new TLD would require a
> trademark owner to register 1,000 new domain names,
> with an ongoing commitment to monitor another name
> space.
> Is it any wonder that they do not want any more
> TLDS????
> On the other side of this debate, you have those
> who look at the world in more pragmatic terms (yes,
> these *are* biased opinions :-).  You have those
> who fear the process described above, in effect,
> has negative implications on freedom of speech
> and control of language issues.
> You also have those who realize that this process
> is NOT consistent with the way Trademarks exist in
> the real world.  For example, Trademark owners today
> accept multiple, similar (but non confusing) uses for
> their trademarks!  For example, Acme Tires, Acme
> Rubber, Acme Chemicals, etc.  They even accept
> similar *and* confusing marks, as long as they
> exist in different jurisdictions.
> This frames the meta-issue that underlies the whole
> DNS fiasco.  Both sides are driven by their respective
> realities, and both sides are correct.
> For example, those who want to expand the name space
> believe that adding new gTLDs will provide additional
> diversity that will *diminish* the battles over good
> domain names.  And they are correct, of course, unless
> the trademark interests simply purchase and/or regulate
> these new domain names to protect their marks.
> IMHO, the world would be a better place if we could
> all agree that Trademarks and Domain Names interface
> as an integrated whole, *not* based on each level of
> the domain name.  In other words, the entire domain
> name can be a trademark, but a trademark is not
> automatically a domain name.
> For example, Amazon.com is a domain name as well as
> a trademark.  IBM, a trademark, is not automatically
> a domain name like IBM.TLD, nor is IBM.SLD.TLD, nor
> is IBM.3LD.SLD.TLD, etc.  Normal trademark rules
> should apply to qualifying the latter.
> Finally, I also suggest that we embrace market
> mechanisms to allocate desirable domain names,
> not regulation.
> Respectfully,
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc.
> 404-943-0524  http://www.iperdome.com
> At 2/19/99, 02:48 PM, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >>>Also, in response to Martin Schwimmer:
> >>>
> >>>>In other words, if you added .inc, .ltd., .firm, .shop and .store
> >>>>tomorrow, then anonymous folks could tomorrow register ebay.inc,
> >>>>ebay.ltd, ebay.firm, ebay.shop and ebay.store, all of which, in my
> >>>>humble but professional opinion, are likely to create confusion with
> >>>>our friends over at ebay.com.
> >>>
> >>>This seems to be a reasonable concern, given that there is already
> >>>quite a bit of registration of companies in ccTLDs.  Wouldn't the
> >>>companies who are interested in having those names in all (or even
> >>>most) TLDs pursue the same avenues they are pursuing in the existing
> >>>gTLDs?
> >>>
> >>>--gregbo
> >>
> >If I understand your question correctly:
> >
> > TM owners are utilizing services like netnames or namestake to obtain as
> >many ccTLD versions of their TMs as they can reasonably afford, although it
> >adds up - especially since a company may need to acquire several names in a
> >particular ccTLD (because of reserved second level DNs (i.e. .co.jp).  But
> >that's just for one trademark.  Many companies have more than one trademark
> >or trading name they may wish to protect.  And if the company's trademark
> >consists of two words and they have to worry about variants
> >(pizzahut.co.jp, pizza-hut.co.jp, pizzahut.jp, pizza-hut.jp) a block-out
> >strategy becomes economically impossible for all but the largest companies.
> > (note the irony that an original appeal of a gTLD was that you only needed
> >one name and anybody in the world could get in touch with you).
> >
> >So if there was a huge number of undifferentiated gTLDS requiring
> >registration of pizzahut.firm, pizza-hut.firm, etc., well, let's put it one
> >way.  Pizza Hut would likely oppose such a scenario and you couldn't
> >criticize them for not putting ORSC's interests first.  (p.s. The views
> >expressed herein are not necessarily those of Pizza Hut, which was the
> >first well known two word trademark I could think of.  When in New York,
> >you may wish to try pizza at John's, with locations on Bleeker Street in
> >the Village and one on the West Side off Columbus).
> >


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208