Bret Fausett wrote:
>What do you think about Mikki's suggested language? Doesn't that solve
>the trademark part, making it clear that both sides to this debate have a
>place?
Add me to the camp that doesn't believe trademark owners should get special
handling. Trademark owners, like businesses that don't possess registered
marks, are commercial enterprises. If you break out TMOs, then why not
break out a religious constituency, or a sports constituency, or a not-for
profit constituency, educational constituency, and x-rated constituency.
With some Internet companies soaring to seemingly instant success, I just
don't understand why the trademark aspect gets so much special attention.
What happens when the 150 TMOs sharing the same mark in commerce begin
haggling over priority rights on the web. Now that will really be a hoot!
Oh sure, they will say, first come-first served. In other words, they will
likely invoke RFC 1591 when it serves their purposes to stave off a claim
of by the senior owner of an identical mark, but not when they challenge a
legitimate domain registrant who doesn't happen to possess a trademark.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================ // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
// \\ "Carpe canine"
