Re: [dnsproc-en] moviebuff decision

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Seikanth, Carl, Michael and all,

  Not knowing the particulars of this case I would like to see the
transcripts of this case and in particular the complete text of the
Judges decision.  I am very interested for several reasons.  Is
a transcript available somewhere on the net?  Could someone
point it out to me possibly?  >;)

  Now for the rest of Srikanth's comments...  See below...

Srikanth Narra wrote:

> Carl / Michael
>
> What's your complete take on all aspects of this case ?
>
> (1) While the judgement on meta-tag aspect of the case seems to be fair,
> just and well thought out...and needs to be applauded.
>
> (2) The issue of trademark rights not being available to domain name
> registrant because of not "commercially" used..does leave a feeling of
> severe unease...

  I am curious as to this comment, Srikanth.  What gives you this impression?

>
>
> The court seemed to have taken very narrow view of "commercial" use - only
> from traditional brick and motar trademark angle - avoiding being as
> forward/deep thinking as it was on the meta tag aspect.

  Good point.  And this is beginning to show a expanding understanding of
the court in TM issues vs DN issues as they are merging.

>
>
> The court side stepped clearly defining or exploring or expanding or
> recognizing - what consistutes "Commericial" use in a non brick and motar
> world - with completely different business model. Where Servies are provided
> just to build goodwill in anticipation (or with a vague view) of actually
> "payment" (if any) at a much much later date...from currently unpredictable
> manner/source (from advertisers for one ?)
>
> (3) Considering the fact that domain names are ruled to be property. What
> about property rights of domain name registrant, in this case ?

  Good question.  And one that the ICANN may need to review in light of their
Accreditation Policy with respect to Privacy issues of the DN holder.  This
would likely have ramifications with respect to the MAC as well.

>
>
> (4) Does it not open another can of worms ? Consider this scenario -
>
> If a big company wants a particular domain name and finds that its taken
> and/or not yet in "Commercial" (as in context of trademark) use - all they
> have to do is get trademark rights by first "commercial" use of term in
> business sense - then go after the domain name registrant - isn't it ?

  Interesting point.  And why we recommend that registrants register
their DN as soon as possible as a TM.

>
>
> Please can we have your clear view on all different aspects of this case ?
>
> Sri
>
> ps:- took the liberty of copying Micheal comment from the New York Times
> article for ease of reference. For complete article please go to
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/cyber/cyberlaw/30law.html
>
> "A. Michael Froomkin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School who
> teaches courses in cyberlaw, also hailed the decision, in part because he
> said it exhibited a sophisticated understanding of the workings of the
> Internet. He also said the court got the conclusion right.
>
> "I like this opinion," Froomkin said. "It makes clear that things that look
> and feel like unfair competition are unfair competition. But the court did
> not go overboard because it recognized perfectly legitimate uses of
> trademarks," he added. "
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Oppedahl [mailto:carl@oppedahl.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 2:57 PM
> To: Michael Brian Bentley; wipo
> Subject: Re: [dnsproc-en] moviebuff decision
>
> At 10:43 AM 4/30/99 , Michael Brian Bentley wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/04/cyber/cyberlaw/30law.html
> >
> >An interesting case where use of the term "moviebuff" is disallowed as an
> >HTML metatag because it is the registered trademark of another firm. The
> >losing side apparently thought that _they_ owned the trademark.
>
> [...]
>
> >As for domain names, I'm prepared to chuck the whole system and just use IP
> >addresses. If domain names are going to require a full international
> >trademark search, I don't want to spend the money.
>
> The problem is that domain names are *necessary* so as to keep you
> independent of IP addresses.  If you change ISPs, or even if you merely
> change who is your backbone connectivity provider, you are likely to be
> forced to change IP addresses.  In such a case, you simply redirect your
> domain names to point to the new IP addresses.  The outside world need not
> be told anything about the new IP addresses, and they can keep using the
> same old domain names that they always used to reach you.
>
> if you just use IP addresses you are stuck having to try to tell the whole
> world your new IP addresses.
>
> If you don't mind not having a "catchy" domain name, and want to be
> independent of IP addresses as described above, and want to avoid trademark
> hassles, the simple approach is to register a domain name that looks like a
> random license plate, e.g. WST439.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Regards,

--
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