At 10:46 AM 2/24/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Does Pizza Hut own these ?
>
>http://Jump.to/Pizza-Hut
unassigned.
>
>http://This.is/Pizza-Hut
>
unassigned.
btw, this would be a different analysis from the urls discussed in the
gopeds and ballysucks cases.
>What about the PizzaHut world in http://www.activeworlds.com ?
>...should Pizza Hut have the rights to that ?
It's not a question of "should have the rights" but could a third party
create and/or promote a PizzaHut without causing confusion or dilution.
Depends on the circumstances.
>
>What about... http://www.pizza.hut ?
When was the hut tld activated? Did Lucasfilms register Jabba.the.hut?
>or
>http://www.hut.pizza ?
sure for say can't.
>
>and finally... http://www.hot.pizza
>
Now this would be a valuable name in the .pizza tld, more valuable than
no.anchovies.pizza or why.do.californians.put.pineapples.on.pizza.
All this in response to:
>
>>I didn't pick Sweden by accident. Think about the way in which Sweden's
>>NIC administers that ccTLD and you will understand why I said that
>>pizza-hut.firm creates issues that pzza-hut.se does not. Yes, third party
>>ownership of pizza-hut.se could violate PIZZA HUT'S rights. But which is
>>more likely to occur, third party ownership of pizza-hut.se or
>>pizzahut.com, for example. I'm not advocating that the world adopts the
>>.se policy - there is dissatisfaction among various users for various
>>reasons - but Sweden's experience provides some empirical evidence for
>>alternatives to the .com model.
>>
>>
>>>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. You believe that "pizza-hut.se" is a violation of pizza
>>hut's
>>>> trademark. You believe that "pizza-hut.firm" is a violation of pizza
>hut's
>>>> trademark. My understanding of your position is that
>>pizza-hut.<anything> is a
>>>> violation of their rights. Whether or not that is really your position,
>>that
>>>> certainly IS going to be the position of Pizza Hut's trademark lawyers.
>>That has
>>>> been the position of big TMOs with respect to .net, .org, etc.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, there are no new issues posed by expanding the TLD space. One
>>could also
>>>> posit that there are no new issues posed by creating new SLD hierachical
>>>> categories, (e.g., food.us) as long as TMOs believe that mere
>>registration of a
>>>> character string corresponding to their TM character string, regardless
>>of use,
>>>> constitutes a violation of their rights.
>>>>
>>>> But perhaps this exchange would go somewhere constructive if you would
>>explain
>>>> what you think those "new" issues are.
>>>> --MM
>>>>
>>>> Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Not really. New gTLDs create new issues that would not exist if the
>new
>>>> > gTLDs did not exist. .firm creates issues not currently present with
>.se
>>>> >
>>>> > I would imagine that a better formulation for your subjectless "it is
>>>> > about" would be how to create a just procedure that provides a fair
>>>> > mechanism for the balancing of the rights of the various parties
>>involved.
>>>> >
>>>> > >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> So the topic at issue here is whether the domain name registration
>>system
>>>> > >> should be expanded without recognition of the legal rights of
>>others - or
>>>> > >> perhaps there can be some reasonable compromise.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Not really. All of the threats to pre-existing rights exist--or
>>>> > not--regardless of
>>>> > >whether "new" gTLDs are created. They exist in current TLDs. It is
>not,
>>>> > and never
>>>> > >has been, about the *application* of existing laws and rights. It is,
>>and
>>>> > always
>>>> > >has been, about the *cost* of policing and enforcing existing laws
>and
>>>> > rights.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >--MM
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> M I L T O N M U E L L E R S Y R A C U S E U N I V E R S I T Y
>>>> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>>/ / / /
>>>> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>>>> School of Information Studies
>>http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>--
>>>Jeffrey A. Williams
>>>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>>>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>>>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Contact Number: 972-447-1894
>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
