>Fine and dandy, but the only other trademark lawyers on this list--the ones who
>have handled more litigation in this area than you have--agree with me.
>So your pretense that this is a matter of expertise is dishonest, and
>obviously so
>to anyone who follows the discussion.
>
Indicate your basis for being able to state in public that you are familiar
with my level of expertise in trademark law with any degree of certainty,
especially relative to "the only other trademark lawyers on this list" and
especially to the extent of calling me dishonest.
You still don't know what you're talking about.
>I look forward to what kind of rationalizations you can concoct to explain away
>Professor Froomkin's reduction of the WIPO report to a heap of smoking rubble.
>Probably he's dishonest, too?
No, his report was pretty thoughtful and I recommend it. I wouldn't stand
so close to him if I were you.
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> Mueller refers to my blatnat irrationality and talks about how greedy pizza
>> hut would be if someone obtained pizza-hut.co.na and concludes:
>>
>> > It certainly bears no
>> >relationship to trademark law.
>>
>> You know, reasonable folks can differ on these issues, but after a certain
>> point all that's left for me to say is that you are a professor of
>> communications and have been dabbling in the trademark debate for a little
>> while (dishonestly in my personal opinion), and I am an international
>> trademark attorney and have handled trademark matters in probably over a
>> hundred different countries. You want to spout about markets, fine, but
>> when it comes to trademark law, you simply don't know what you are talking
>> about.
>>
>> >
>> >--MM
>> >
>> >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>Also, in response to Martin Schwimmer:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>This seems to be a reasonable concern, given that there is already
>> >> >>quite a bit of registration of companies in ccTLDs. Wouldn't the
>> >> >>companies who are interested in having those names in all (or even
>> >> >>most) TLDs pursue the same avenues they are pursuing in the existing
>> >> >>gTLDs?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--gregbo
>> >> >
>> >> If I understand your question correctly:
>> >>
>> >> TM owners are utilizing services like netnames or namestake to obtain as
>> >> many ccTLD versions of their TMs as they can reasonably afford,
>>although it
>> >> adds up - especially since a company may need to acquire several
>>names in a
>> >> particular ccTLD (because of reserved second level DNs (i.e. .co.jp). But
>> >> that's just for one trademark. Many companies have more than one
>>trademark
>> >> or trading name they may wish to protect. And if the company's trademark
>> >> consists of two words and they have to worry about variants
>> >> (pizzahut.co.jp, pizza-hut.co.jp, pizzahut.jp, pizza-hut.jp) a block-out
>> >> strategy becomes economically impossible for all but the largest
>>companies.
>> >> (note the irony that an original appeal of a gTLD was that you only
>>needed
>> >> one name and anybody in the world could get in touch with you).
>> >>
>> >> So if there was a huge number of undifferentiated gTLDS requiring
>> >> registration of pizzahut.firm, pizza-hut.firm, etc., well, let's put
>>it one
>> >> way. Pizza Hut would likely oppose such a scenario and you couldn't
>> >> criticize them for not putting ORSC's interests first. (p.s. The views
>> >> expressed herein are not necessarily those of Pizza Hut, which was the
>> >> first well known two word trademark I could think of. When in New York,
>> >> you may wish to try pizza at John's, with locations on Bleeker Street in
>> >> the Village and one on the West Side off Columbus).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
