Re: DNS: RE: The DNS regime.

Re: DNS: RE: The DNS regime.

From: Larry Bloch <larry§netregistry.com.au>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 10:42:27 +1000
At 00:11 12/05/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Petrov,
>
>>Do you (plural) think the current rules for registration of domain names in
>>Australia provide either a fair means of allocating domain names or a means
>      >of avoiding disputes under trade marks or passing-off laws?
>
>the issue of the DNS avoiding disputes under trademark or passing off laws
>is a red herring.  Trademark owners do not 'own' names exclusively.
>
>Coca-Cola has the right to use the name 'Coke'.  So does the 
>company named 'Kembla Coal and Coke'.  McDonalds Family
>Restaurants has the right to use the name McDonalds.  So does
>McDonalds Plumbing.  So does McDonalds Pharmacy.  So do
>thousands of people in Australia, and I guess a million in Scotland.
>
>The trademarks system acknowledges that one company does not
>own a name because it allows multiple companies to register the
>same trademark in different categories.  Even if a company registered
>a trademark in every single category, they would not 'own' the name,
>and would have no legal right to prohibit other entities using the name,
>as long as they did not infringe on the trademark or indulge in 'passing
>off'.  Feel free to write and publish a book about McDonalds Family
>Restaurants, or sing 'Old McDonald had a farm'.

Mark

You make a dangerous and false analogy.

Trademarks and domain names in this instance are not analagous, as very
clearly a SINGLE entity has FULL rights to a domain name. Only Melbourne IT
can use the name melbourneit.com.au, so why not consider them as owners?

After all, the DNS system is designed to create unique names, unlike
trademarks.

>
>So from the point of view of domain name registration, the first entity
>to register the name 'McDonalds' is entitled to that name, if they meet
>the criteria for the SLD.  As long as they are not passing off as another
>entity, fine.  If they are, then they can expect to be hauled into court
>by whoever they are copying.
>If a court rules that company A is passing off as company B, the court
>may well rule that company A may no longer use their domain name.
> That's covered in the ADNA policies for non-renewal/revocation of
>a name.
>
>Do a search of some common names on the ASC site and you'll see
>what I mean.  No one - including Trademark owners - 'owns' exclusive
>rights to names.  One of my continuing concerns is the attempt by
>trademark owners to secure rights on the internet ('ownership' of a name)
>that they don't have off the internet.  That's one of the reason's why I 
>voted against allowing Trademarks as a criteria for a name in .com.au
>
>I just don't see why some product names (trademarks) should be
>allowed if other product names (non trademarked) aren't.
>
>Regards, Mark
> 
-------------------------------
Larry Bloch                   email:  larry&#167;netregistry.au.com
Chief Executive Officer       Office: +61-(0)2-9555 6299
NetRegistry Pty Limited       Fax:    +61-(0)2-9555 5808

http://www.netregistry.au.com
Domain House, 3 Hosking Street, Balmain, Sydney NSW 2041
Received on Tue May 12 1998 - 11:35:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC