Re: DNS: or

Re: DNS: or

From: Gary Meltzer <garym§>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 03:04:46 GMT
On Wed, 04 Dec 1996 11:01:54 +1100, Brett Caird <brettc&#167;> wrote:

>At 10:36 4/12/96 +1000, you wrote:
[gih&#167; (Geoff Huston)]
>>How does this cover the action along the hypothetical lines of:
>>"You are using my name acme in your use of I have
>> been damaged. The registry is a party to this action. I wish to you sue
>> you and the registry for damage you have done to my company."
>>Interplead all you like - its not the right to use the name thats the massive
>>issue - its the damages arising from misuse of someone else's
>>name which cause the largest gleam in the lawyers' sights.
>As I understand it, the ASC would not stop me creating a company with a name
>that is very similar to an existing company.

Here's a quote from a possibly out-of-date Consumer Affairs leaflet:

[re: The Business Names Act, 1962]
"The Act provides that the Department of Consumer Affairs must not
register a business name that in the opinion of the Department is
undesirable or falls within the range of names which are the subject
of a ministerial direction or prohibition.  In this category are
included names:

o  that are likely to be confused with or mistaken for names which
   are already registered or reserved with either the Department
   or the Australian Securities Commisssion;

o  names that are misleading as to the nature, objects or purposes
   of the business conducted or to be conducted."

>If the existing company could prove that I was infringing on its goodwill, I
>would be in trouble... to my knowledge the ASC would not normally be implicated.

I'm not sure that "infringing on its goodwill" is a valid point of dispute.
Infringement of trade marks and service marks could certainly be trouble.

>If the registry is operating within its guidelines and the person
>registering has a claim to that name under those guidelines I
>would argue that the registry was doing its job.  The party requesting the
>domain should take the fall as it is they who stand to gain from infringing
>on another's goodwill.

Registration of business names or company names does not constitute
ownership.  That is covered by copyright, trade marks and service marks.

>If I walked up to a signwriter and asked him to paint me a sign that says
>"ACME..." would he be drawn into the drama?  I requested the sign, he is
>just doing his job.
>Obviously the signwriter is a little different as he is not an "Authority".
>My point is the ASC isn't roasted for allowing a company to be created that
>would infinge on another's goodwill, nor should a DNSA be roasted for
>allowing a domain name that would infringe on some company's goodwill.
>The problem with more than one company potentially being entitled to the
>same domain name could only be solved (as far as I can see) by removing the
>practice of allowing abbreviations and acronyms and insisting on domains
>being exactly the same as the organizations real name (same as other
>authorities) with a tacked on the end.

I agree that abbreviations negate the goal of restricting names to
registered business and company names.

-- Gary Meltzer               mailto:garym&#167;
SoftShore Industries Pty Ltd
PO Box 972, Bondi Junction,   Ph 1-800-685-400  (02) 9315-8350
NSW 2022, Australia.          Fax (02) 9665-4349
-- Specialists in applying and supplying technology
Received on Wed Dec 04 1996 - 15:00:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC