Re: [IFWP] Re: Criterion for placement on the List

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

Kerry and all,

Kerry Miller wrote:

> John,
> > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working
> > knowledge of the Internet.  They are twofold:
> >
> > 1)  Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below those
> > assigned by TLD registries, or against directory names used within
> > Web sites, is a practical impossibility.  The vast majority of names
> > at these levels are assigned for private use by the holders of the
> > parent domain name, not by publicly accessible registries.
>
> Maybe for now. The idea that any part of the internet is not de facto
> publically accessible will not stand in the way of the de jure
> *possibility - and no lawyer ever said anything was impossible.
>   "First they came for the 2LD holders..."

  Sure sooner or later the TM interests and their legal cadre on that
side of the fence will be looking to "Create Law" that will make it
financially viable to go after any DN holder that has a DN that even
remotely resembles any existing TM.  They will flock like locusts
to this fresh field(s) of vegetation.

>
>
> > 2)  In part because of point 1, consumers' beliefs about the
> > ownership of Web sites and e-mail addresses are typically based on
> > the second-level domain names (or third-level for registries that
> > do not directly delegate SLDs), not domain names at lower levels or
> > directory names.  The likelihood of consumer confusion based on
> > these names is consequently too small to concern most trademark
> > holders.
>
>
> Between you and Greg, these consumer beliefs sure are the
> cornerstone of a lot of whats 'impossible' to fix about this barely 5
> yr old Net (thats the consumer belief, isnt it?).  Do you imagine any
> functionary of the *legal system ever catching on that the way out
> is to educate the goldurned consumer?

  Educating the consumer in a reasonable amount of time has always
been a problematic undertaking in any area of endeavor.  Hence it is
not likely to occur in any meaningful manner.  This is not to say that
attempting to do so should not be attempted.  The problem with "Doing
So", is that so much misinformation and disinformation has already been
disseminated out as gospel that the consumer will still end up confused,
not to mention the Judicial branch of Government(s).  This we have
already seen clearly on these very lists, even today!!

>
>
> I just read Playboy v AsiaFocus (1998)
>    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/domain/playboy.html
>
> wherein even 5 letters and a hyphen didnt make the URL
> unconfusing -- after all, they sold keychains too.  What struck me
> was that nowhere  in the decision was the fact mentioned that
> 'playboy' and 'playmate' were common, ordinary words before PEI
> trademarked them (thus creating *confusion, I should have thought,
> between plain speech and enterprise -- but maybe thats where the
> prising comes in?) . One would think that after creating Adam and
> Eve, then created he trademarks.

  LOL!  Interesting conclusion Kerry.  >;)  Or maybe than came Porn, eh?

>
>
> This is surely a precedent that deserves to be renouced or revoked,
> or whatever the term might be, before any Net-wise agency (I
> include ICANN as a courtesy) starts setting up compulsory
> arbitration or reservation of names.

  Compulsory "Arbitration" is a problem as it begins to get very expensive
for many small businesses, as has been pointed out before.  Even, in
most cases MORE expensive than going to court.

  Reservation of names, has it's own problems as well, as it sets a
precedent,
much like what CORE/IAHC bunch did, that makes for a false sense of
security and also raises arbitrarily, value of Names.  Again, we have
explored this road as well.  I don't think that many want to go here
either.

>
>
> Otherwise, as Carl pointed out, getting on the List will repeat the
> SO 'representation' farce all over again. But wait, wont that be the
> kind of leverage Greg was just wishing for, to get the Firestones
> into a shared 2LD?  Is anyone here interested in a Potentially
> Famous Mark constituency?

  Famous Mark Constituency!  LOL!  That is a laugh.  They have ALWAYS
had a loosely formed constituency for decades.

>
>
> kerry

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