Re: [DNS] New Domain Level - Debate a bit OT

Re: [DNS] New Domain Level - Debate a bit OT

From: Doug Robb <doug§>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:15:30 +0800 (WST)
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:

> I think you are missing one important quality of trade
> marks: they do not give you complete unfettered control of
> the word. 

Hi, yes I understand that and as you say there is only
one domain. This is why the whole cyber-sqatting stuff
you read about in the press is an oversimplication.

eg when Melbourne IT got a court order to get All the other party had to do
was to register a trade mark in someother non IT class
(in with paints or something) and then put up a web
page related to that class and I would think you
wouldn't find a lawyer in the country that would
say MelbIT (in this case) would have a hope of
taking it off you. Of course if they wanted to
buy your 'paint' company then thats another story ....

As you suggest
what rubicon systems has done is quite legal if
they indeed belong to a different class (providing
of course they dont start selling software which 
is where my trademark is infringed).

Rather my point is that trademark holders cannot
get a domain without a 1 to 1 map with a
business or company. For large companys with literally
hundreds of trademarks this is a nonsense.

The alternative of a domain is something to think
about but of course the class problem becomes an issue.

Received on Mon Apr 10 2000 - 11:15:32 UTC

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