I cannot think of a standard that would work *other than*
>unique-and-coined. The problem, if someone with a dictionary word gets
>their mark on the List, is that the dictionary word is now unavailable as a
>domain name for other like-named companies. United Airlines will clamor to
>get "united" put on the list, and this denies the ability of United Van
>Lines to get "united.foo".
>
>Can you answer this point, please?
Again, I'm not interested in defending the list concept - I'm interested in
preventing the erroneous notion that unique and coined is a standard that's
found in any statute or case law. This is your personal crusade.
But as long as you asked me direclty to answer:
Criteria one through seven on page 83 of the WIPO reprot is superior to
"unique and coined." I've already given a list of moany of the world's
most famous and well-known trademarks which are not coined.
It's not self-evident that United Airlines would rush to get UNITED on the
list and risk a lawsuit with United Van Lines.
It's also not self evident that either company could get UNITED on the list
(or that Sun Microsytems could get SUN, especially since it had a court
case with Sun Petroleum). Both companies might lose on criteria 5 on the
fact that each is faced by numerous third parties using the UNITED mark,
and the fact that some of those third parties are themselves well-known.
But United Airlines could very likely get UNITED AIRLINES on the list, and
United Van Lines could get UNITED VAN LINES on the list.
Why should a third party be allowed to register unitedairlines.foo1,
unitedairlines.foo2, etc?
>
>
>
