RE: [DNS] Why have a policy?

RE: [DNS] Why have a policy?

From: Michael McKinnon <mjm§>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:20:34 +1000
But Trademarks have the capacity to be registered in different industry

For example, the various different trademarks for MSN are in classes 9, 36,
38, 39, 41 and 42.

See the different classes here:

Trademarks by their name alone are not unique. Domains are.  This is surely
why FCFS works.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike [mailto:mjr&#167;] 
Sent: Friday, 1 April 2005 2:54 PM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: Re: [DNS] Why have a policy?


I think any reasonable person looking at an application for anthing with MSN
in it would reject it on the grounds that it is a registered trademark owned
by someone apart from the person who's applying for it..

There is a req in the policies that covers trademarks..
If there's a req. why not a check of the trademark database prior to a
domain being issued..
Then it's auto..
Infringers are stopped at the pass..
ATMOSS returns 15 entries for MSN..

As for cancelled warranties..
Do we really want to go there..
Grandfathering will make it a legal nightmare, not to mention the history of
a FCFS start, then semi regulated, then regulated, then auctions, now
rollback on geographics..

FCFS would make it a whole lot easier than most people think..


Bennett Oprysa wrote:

> Hi,
> can you explain on what grounds a registrar would reject such an 
> application?
> There are numerous reasons why it could be perfectly feasible, eg 
> applicant provides support/advice specific to msnmessenger applicant 
> sells addons for msnmessenger applicant has their own product called 
> msnmessenger or something similar
> all of the above are without question appropriate reasons for 
> registering the domain, for all we know the registrant may well fit 
> one of the above when applying for a domain. Do you expect registrars 
> to do a site visit and conduct interviews with the employees of the 
> company to make sure their claim is true for every application?
> If the registrant has made a false warranty they risk losing the 
> domain. If they have also missused a trademark belonging to a 
> multinational, they also face the risk of incurring considerable legal 
> costs when the lawyers descend upon them.
> As far as registrars being too lenient, the simple fact is that the 
> number of registrations cancelled by auDA due to people having made 
> false warranties can be counted on one hand last time I checked.
> Bennett.

List policy, unsubscribing and archives => Please do not
retransmit articles on this list without permission of the author, further
information at the above URL.
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC