You are missing the point.

There are only about 2-4 classes (from memory) that will protect a word or
series or words from online use.

Go and try register Microsoft in ANY namespace and see what happens, no they
don't have them all.

Anyone remember Microsoft trying to protect the numbers 1 and 0? It didn't
happen, for obvious reasons, but imagine if they got it?

As the internet does not have specific law written for it, it must follow
our current laws.

Does auDA have the right to issue a license to use a domain name (protectedc
trademark) when that domain name is protected by IP laws because the word
has been registered as a trademark in all relevant classes.

I think the wording needs to be changed from license to management fee or
maintenance fee or something else, because as it stands, it could be argued
that auDA is issuing a license to a protected mark.

Remember law works on definition, and license is the wrong word to use.

Actually Apple is a bad example, because Apple can not be protected as a
word in itself because it's used in everyday dealings and is in the English
dictionary, so no one has rights to the word Apple :)

That example you show only shows you are not seeing the point of IP law.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2006 12:57 AM
> To: Charlie McCormack
> Cc: 'Kim Davies'; '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> 
> Quoting Charlie McCormack on Wednesday July 19, 2006:
> | You are referring to a product or process, not a word or series of words
> as
> | a mark, there is a big difference.
> 
> I thought you would patent a product or a process? What is wrong with
> what I said with respect to trademarks?
> 
> Can you give an example of other cases where having a trademark
> unilaterally usurps other restrictions, rules, regulations or business
> processes that may otherwise apply?
> 
> I just don't see the connection. Trademarking a name isn't an automatic
> or exclusive right to everything and anything with that name it. Nor
> does it prevent a business from otherwise conducting business that is
> otherwise permissible just because it involves the same letters.
> 
> Why can't a domain like apple.foo be licensed Apple Records, or the
> Apple Growers Association, or Gwyneth Paltrow's kid Apple, or Mrs Apple
> - just because Apple Computers has a trademark on it in relation to
> computers?
> 
> kim