Kent and all, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: - snip other diatribe a la Kent "Crispy" Crispin - > > > > > In that case, ICANN wouldn't have a choice, as long as it is > > California-based. In your example, IOD and ICANN are both > > incorporated under US jurisdiction. Therefore US trademark law > > applies, definitely, as has been discussed here before. It's a > > matter of prior use, in trade. If they tried to recognize the German > > claim, IOD would (probably) hand them a TRO, along with the suit for > > damages and dilution of mark. The case would never see a German > > court, if IOD was at all intelligent about it. Please remember also > > that the defendant is customarily awarded the home court, or choice > > of venue. > > Once again, you completely miss the point. The point is not that > ICANN will grant private ownership of a .web TLD to a German > company; the point is that it WON'T grant ownership to IODesign, > because of the legal complications. And in fact it won't grant > private ownership of a TLD to anyone. ICANN has no power to grant ownership of any TM'ed TLD to anyone or any company. In that I believe that IOD has a SM on .WEB it is IOD's decision should they decide to register .WEB or 'WEB" as a TM. IF or once that is done than ICANN would be in a bit of an embarrassing position. > > > So IODesign can always try to get its .web going in alternate roots, > but it will never be in the real roots. Define "Real Roots". > > > However, that doesn't preclude the possibility of there being a > public interest .web in the real roots. IODesign went to court once, > and backed down real quick, and, as I have said, I have been told by > quite competent TM attorneys that they simply don't have a case. > You mention TROs as if you knew what you were talking about -- IODs > TRO was denied. It is true that IOD does not have a strong case from a TM standpoint as they do not have a TM filed on .WEB or "WEB". This is IMHO a very short sighted business decision on the part of IOD at this juncture. > > > > > And, on the other side of the coin, if ICANN ever adds a privately > > > "owned" TLD, ICANN will face a whole raft of legal challenges > > > from other people who want their private TLD in the root. > > > > This is completely true. They could not be exclusionary, on a > > selective basis. They have to either be all-inclusive, or > > all-exclusive. Half-way is not going to cut it. > > That's right. And it will be all-exclusive, because the > "all-inclusive" model requires choices being made that will be > contested in court. This statement is pure nonsense. In other words such a mindset in not necessarily the case, nor is it desired by most parties involved, irrespective of their root server status. > So the only new TLDs that get in the root are > going to be run in the public interest, not for private gain. And this is a good position to take to a point... > > Fortunately, the POC names, with the possible exception of .web, are > clear of any reasonable IP claims. Wrong. We have filed TM's on a couple of them. > Of course, idiots can always > start groundless suits, but groundless suits don't last. > > > > The basic issue is that ICANN will have the ultimate decision > > > responsibility for insertion of TLDs in the root; and hence the > > > ultimate legal liability for those actions. As has been mentioned, > > > ICANN has been envisioned as a sort of "standards body", with a TLD being > > > effectively presented as an Internet standard -- and in > > > order to avoid anti-trust litigation, those standards will have to > > > be open, non-proprietary standards. > > > > This is a point that ICANN hasn't understood yet. > > On the contrary -- ICANN understands perfectly well. It is ORSC that > fails to understand -- it is ORSC that is trying to get proprietary > TLDs in the root. Possibly. I am not convinced of this. > > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > 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