On 10-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> Write a post asking for working together to harmonize, and they reply with
> "drop dead."
> If there were several thousand instances in three years of TM owners
> complaining to phone companies regarding trademark conflicts as to how
> 1-800 numbers were allocated, the situations would be analogous (I am not
> referring to conflicts as to the scarcity of desired 1-800 numbers). I
> doubt there have been more than five reported cases regarding the trademark
> use of telephone numbers in the past ten years. There are five reported
> cases regarding DNs and TMs a month these days.
I put forth that the reason conflicts dont exist in the case of 1-800 numbers
is because it is well known that such "conflicts" will not be accomodated.
And in fact, that is the practice.
> The collision with the pre-existing body of rights known as trademark
> rights is an externality of the business of selling domain names. The DNS
> can take responsibility for this externality and work to minimize the
> externality - or they are, to put the best face on it, bad citizens.
Any rules which automatically require a user to ceritify they will not use this
name to violate a trademark is a violation of their fundamental rights. They
have a right, under law, to use the name in any fashion unless proven by the
trademark holder, in a court of law, that their use violates the trademark
holders' rights.
I have asked in the past, and I ask again, WHY SHOULD TRADEMARKS HOLD GREATER
PROTECTION IN CYBERSPACE THEN THEY DO IN ANY OTHER MEDIUM?
What is so unique about Cyberspace that requires a special set of extra legal
rules and a limit on the free rights of domain name holders?
> TM owners are not interested in rigging the DNSO to gain some type of
> majority (einar's hypo aside). They are in this debate because of the f***
> you tone of Mr. Feld's post. (if my expurgated term offends, I apologize
> - but it is the essence of Mr. Feld's message).
The threat TM owners make is that they will get laws passed if they do not get
some accomodation in this process. I say that is an empty threat, and nothing
but an attempt to bully.
Let Trademark holders have the EXACT same representation in the DNSO as ANYONE
else. Why should they have ANY special extra representation? I want to see
you justify this! Why should they have ANY extra standing over ANY other
stakeholder?
>
> "As an aside, I will add that TM law seems to be adjusting just fine, with
> no need for any raidcal adjustments on anyone's part."
>
> Which conclusion can only be reached by ignoring the totality of the TM/DN
> conflict over the past few years. Note the contradictory tone - there is
> no problem - accomodate yourself to the problem.
I've looked at the "totality" as you call it, and compared to the market as a
whole, find it to be very insignificant to the overall picture. In any market
you will have a small percentage of problems, and the fraction of a percent of
domain name registrations that result in a DN/TM conflict are not enough to
warrant a special level of significance.
If you claim otherwise, I want to see some HARD numbers and percentages and the
documentation to back them up.
Otherwise, go back to your lobbying efforts and get laws to force us to give
you this accomodation.
We both know how effective THAT will be.
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09-Feb-99
Time: 16:46:36
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
