>The wierd part of this whole issue is that the TM forces seem to be
>dead set against the DNS being allowed to have numerous TLD categories
>like the TM "industry" has, which would allow the same SLD name to be
>unabiguously used by different parties with different TLDs, just
>because the same SLD with a differnet TLD is in fact a distinctly and
>distinctively different name.
While I don't profess personally to be a TM force, I am not dead set
against additional TLDs, and I don't think I am alone amongst TM lawyers in
that respect.
But I don't think that the lack of gTLD names is the core problem of the
TM/DN dispute (which, by the way, is my core issue with the DNS but I don't
posit it as the planet's core issue with the DNS) - it's the way in which
any TLD is administered. Limitless gTLDs will not, in and of themselves,
solve the TM/DN problem if none of those TLDs request verifiable (not,
note, verified) contact info, and the name of the TLD itself does not
distinguish.
In other words, if you added .inc, .ltd., .firm, .shop and .store tomorrow,
then anonymous folks could tomorrow register ebay.inc, ebay.ltd, ebay.firm,
ebay.shop and ebay.store, all of which, in my humble but professional
opinion, are likely to create confusion with our friends over at ebay.com.
I now incorporate by reference everything I've said previously on this topic.
>
>So, the mystery of what is the ORSC "policy postion" is that ORSC
>advocates opening up the root to as many TLDs as the market wants.
>No more, no less! And sooner rather than later!
>
>Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM!
>
>Cheers...\Stef
>
>>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:59:28 -0800 (PST):
>}
>}Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>}
>}>And, when this reality dawns on [TM interests], they will see that
>}>more TLDs will in fact solve their problems by providing lots of
>}>qualifiers and differentiators. How many "qualifier" categories does
>}>TM law already recognize?
>}
>}Good question. When I brought up the subject sometime back, the
>}responses suggested that there were (potentially) hundreds of
>}thousands of qualifiers. Marks are registered geographically,
>}according to the type of business, etc.
>}
>}>Why should DNS have any fewer the TM? Why not lots more?
>}
>}We have had this discussion before (and never seem to be able to
>}resolve it). There are serious concerns as to how well DNS will work
>}with hundreds of thousands of TLDs.
>}
>}Furthermore, are TLDs exclusive in nature? If so, what happens when a
>}business expands into another area? Are they forced to move to a more
>}inclusive TLD (assuming one exists)? Are they forced to register in
>}multiple TLDs? What happens if their names are in use in the target
>}TLDs?
>}
>}What stops TM interests from taking people in any TLD to court? It's
>}not as if all the "qualifying mark" TLDs will be created
>}instantaneously. Until enough TLDs are created to sufficiently
>}qualify a business (assuming that ever happens), there is still a real
>}concern that TM interests will continue to fight for the names they
>}want to protect.
>}
>}I guess I have never really understood the ORSC position on new TLDs,
>}because it doesn't seem to me that it makes the TM problems go away
>}for quite some time, if ever.
>}
>}--gregbo
>
>
