Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

From: James Austin <jea§>
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 14:43:34 +1000
I've spoken to may Trademark lawyers and they have all expressed concerns in
the same regard.

James Austin


Phone:    61 2 9894 1985
Fax:         61 2 9894 1986
Mobile:    0418 23 7494
E-mail:     jea&#167;

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary R Oliver <gary.oliver&#167;>
To: dns&#167; <dns§>
Date: Saturday, 16 May 1998 6:02
Subject: Re: DNS: Prospective new domains ( & (

>I agree entirely and bought it up at the time however the trademark
>obsessed jugggernaut won't be stopped. As you say all they doing is
>creating a parallel sphere with exactly the same arbitration problems, no
>doubt resolved by the shallow approach of first come first served.
>Warm regards
>At 11:49 16/05/98 +1000, you wrote:
>>In my opinion the idea being proposed by ADNA and Professor Gerrand to add
>two new domains being and is not wise. The current problem with
>> is that business are finding it hard to register their trademarks
>and product names. I don't understand the reason why Melbourne IT will not
>allow this, as this is what there policy of "attempting to derive a domain
>name from the  commercial entities legal name is all about".
>>If we assume that Melbourne IT is correct in not allowing certain
>tradenames under and we allow them to register under we are
>going to face
>>massive new problems.
>>For those who do not understand trademarks, a company that owns a
>registered trademark only owns it with respect to certain type of goods and
>services. For
>>example Prince owns an Australian trademark for tennis racquets however a
>computer company also owns a  trademark called prince. How will it be
>>who has the superior right to In most cases there will be
>more than 2 entities that own a registered trademark in respect of more
than 2
>>categories of goods thus the legal fights will be enormous.
>>Thus we are back to the same problems as we have under exceptworse
>because we are saying is reserved for trademarks, but whose trademark
>is it reserved for?
>> Any comments would be appreciated..
>>Get your free Australian email account at
Received on Sun May 17 1998 - 17:07:03 UTC

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