>> You have iterated one problem in some
>> countries. I would postulate that for every case you have, I
>> have one from
>> a domain name holder who is being reverse hijacked.
>
>That's an assertion, one I don't happen to believe is supported by any
>evidence. I believe Marty Schwimmer recently posted a list of names held by
>just one registrant. If you think all those corporate names and brands were
>registered and paid for (if indeed they were paid for) for the registrants
>personal use (perhaps because he had sons and daughters with those names?),
>then, frankly, you're smoking crack.
Excuse me? Let me tell you that I receive at the very least, 3 emails or
phone calls every week from legitimate domain name holders who are being
reverse hijacked who can't afford a lawyer to help them. This is more than
assertion, it is fact.
You may also be interested to find out that the largest holder of names
held by one registrant is Johnson and Johnson, not some "cybersquatter"
unless you think they might also be cybersquatters since they can't
possibly be using all those names. I wonder what they are using them
for....
>
>> So we should take the
>> small problem of cyberpiracy and expand it into allowing some trademark
>> owners (not all mind you because I am a trademark holder) to "interfere in
>> every little DNS detail?" I certainly hope not.
>
>It's not a small problem. It's a big one. Should it suprise you to find
>out that most corporations don't publicize these things, because (a) they
>don't want to be embarrassed, and (b) they don't want it to get out that
>they are willing to pay? I have signed many NDAs to cover that very
>subject.
Should it surprise you to find out tha many corporations simply send cease
and desist letters first and ask questions later? Most domain name holders
cave in.
>>
>> Trademark owners should not have special privilege on the Internet that
>> they don't enjoy in any other medium. Nor should they have special
>> privilege in determining the direction of a TECHNICAL body, the DNSO.
>
>Look, it's a different medium, and there are different problems. If
>Freedonia doesn't protect trademark owners in Freedonia, they don't really
>care, because they don't have a market in Freedonia, and the Freedonians
>don't have much in the way of exports, so it doesn't reach their main
>markets. But on the Internet everything is visible everywhere. It's a new
>problem, and it requires new solutions.
It's the same law and the same concepts. Because the medium reaches more
people should not be a reason for expansion of trademark rights, which are
by definition carved out of freedom of expression.
>
>BTW, if the DNSO is a technical body, why should any old domain holder have
>a say (I think that they should, but that's because I don't think the DNSO
>is just a technical body; it's a political body as well -- as Jay Fenello
>said at the Jan 21 meeting, "this is about Internet governance.")
Yes, unfortunately it HAS become about Internet governance when it really
never should have. The White Paper asked WIPO to look into cybersquatting
ONLY. Unfortunately, they have expanded that into their current RFC 3.
>
>You mean that there are hugely expensive avenues in the United States. Why,
>if there's a better way, wouldn't it be a good idea to implement it? I'm
>not saying there is a better way (certainly not NSI's policy - ugh), but
>wouldn't it be a good idea to investigate the possibility, instead of
>dismissing it out of hand?
Actually, in the .com domain it costs .33 to get a domain name put on hold.
One letter with a copy of your trademark is enough.
I do not feel that the ICANN or the DNSO should IMPOSE this type of policy.
I feel that if the registries or registrars wish to implement policies,
that is up to them. If they decide to go with WIPO's policies, so be it.
As long as the consumer has a choice to go with a registrar who does not
mandate such policies, and as long as these cases can be taken to court as
an alternative.
You seem to think that because I don't think ICANN or the DNSO should
impose policies that there would then be no options for trademark owners.
This is not the case. The disputants should be allowed to choose any
alternative dispute resolution or court system they want.
>
>>The fact that there is only one .com will be
>> alleviated when there are more gTLDs, especially if one is set
>> aside solely
>> for trademark holders in which a group like INTA or WIPO can make the
>> rules.
>
>I see. So when the "trademark" TLD, which as far as I know hasn't even got
>a sponsor a la .per, is created, then all the trademark owners can get a TLD
>there, and they won't care anymore when someone registers their name in all
>the TLDs everyone actually uses? Please.
Again, current laws protect trademark holders from infringement and
dilution. Imposing trademark rules on personal and non commercial domains
is ridiculous. Imposing trademark rules on commercial domains on a "one to
one" basis is also ridiculous (given that multiple trademarks for the same
name exist). It seems that INTA might quickly sponsor a trademark TLD.
>
>> If there are other TLDs for personal use or other non commercial
>> speech, that would certainly alleviate their immediate concern, n'est ce
>> pas?
>
>Tu rigole. Do you have a way to keep personal or not-for-profit users from
>using their "personal" TLDs for e-commerce? Do you have a way to prevent
>personal users from registering in the "commercial" TLDs? Remember, there
>used to be rules for .NET and .ORG, and the enforcement was a nightmare, and
>it was dropped. So do you want to set up a policing staff for these new
>TLDs, so that everyone has to wait while they are "investigated", just to
>prevent trademark owners from using an extra-legal method of preventing
>hijacking?
If they use it for commercial means, if it's infringing, they lose.
Infringers lose 100% of the time in current cases. Personal users SHOULD
be able to register in ANY TLD. They should NOT be able to infringe,
however.
Please tell me what "extra-legal" method domain name holders have to
prevent reverse hijacking. Why is nobody talking about THAT issue (of
which I can relate many, many cases that never went to court because the
domain name holders couldn't afford to hire litigators).
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
