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
Fleming
Unir Corporation
vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
-Original Message-
From: Martin B. Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
I
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
-Original Message-
From: Martin B. Schwimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
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
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 08:46:37PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 11:38 AM 2/20/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:32:54AM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
I am actually responding to Roeland's comment here...
Roeland Meyer wrote:
Sure, but first you'll have to
Now, THAT should be illegal.
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
californians.put.pineapples.on.pizza.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kent Crispin writes:
Do you have access to a backbone router?
No. But I work on networks with a whole lot more than 5 nodes, and a
whole lot more horsepower than dual pentium 450's.
Hmm, as in, mine is bigger then yours?
ROFLPMP.
el
We're departing a bit from the relevant trademark concepts here. Yes, to
register a name could be considered "use," but from the standpoint of
application of trademark protection, the operative concept is "use in commerce."
This means that the domain name must be used as an identifier in
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
Milton and all,
For god's sake, don't we already know that any and all large or
famous trademark owners are likely to protest or file against
any DN owner that they feel is diluting, or otherwise potentially
infringing on their Mark, whether or not the are more gTLD's, TLD's,
or ccTLD's,
For purposes of comparison, what other technologies have been deemed illegal recently?
Or is it just the use of the technology for specific purposes?
Diane Cabell wrote:
Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
()
are
we changing the caching mechanism?
Take a look at the
The mere registration of a domain name could be actionable under theories
other than trademark law. A disgruntled employee of XYZ Corporation could
regsiter xyz.com, which might sound in trademark law, but also might be a
cause of action under various tort theories. For example, in NY state,
n.b. before beginning I should state that I am not an intellectual
property attorney and if I have made any mistakes on Canadian law,
please feel free to correct me. I really know a great deal more about
US law than the law of my home (but that's another story).
Just to follow up on Diane's
My reply is simple: if the courts are deciding it, I have opinions on how it ought
to be decided, but for the moment I am not worried about it. The topic at issue
here is whether the domain name registration system should be re-engineered to
make it easier for Pizza Hut to challenge the
I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
new ventures be respectful of other people's pre-existing rights. These
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
new ventures be respectful of
On 22-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and
Agreed.
At 09:41 AM 2/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
On 22-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
classified as
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
and not the mere existance of identical character strings as
IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to
re-engineer the DNS to conform with
On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
exactly the opposite. The only cases even close to that state that the
offer for sale of a
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In the US they do, and last I
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
and not the mere existance of identical character strings as
IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to
re-engineer the DNS to conform with policy, and not with technical
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
Do you mean "case cite" as
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 02:59:30PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
As the usage,
registering a name in DNS is a use of the name.
Please provide a case site. The only cases I've read on the subject hold
Do you mean "case cite" as
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 09:01:44PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Again, "use" in the legal sense is NOT mere registration, and this point
has been hammered home over and over in US cases.
If what you say is true, then my opinion, this is simply a case where
the law has not caught up with the
On 23-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 09:01:44PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Again, "use" in the legal sense is NOT mere registration, and this point
has been hammered home over and over in US cases.
If what you say is true, then my opinion, this is simply a case
Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
()
are
we changing the caching mechanism?
Take a look at the recent European Parliament ruling on caching as a violation of
copyright.
RAM caching has been deemed a copyright violation in the US since MAI Systems Corp.
v. Peak
Computer,
At 10:37 PM 2/22/99 -0500, Diane Cabell wrote:
Milton Mueller wrote:
Kent Crispin wrote:
()
are
we changing the caching mechanism?
Take a look at the recent European Parliament ruling on caching as a
violation of
copyright.
RAM caching has been deemed a copyright violation in the
At 11:38 AM 2/20/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:32:54AM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
I am actually responding to Roeland's comment here...
Roeland Meyer wrote:
Sure, but first you'll have to prove that there is a problem, Chicken
Little. Show me a failure mode that
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
If I understand the ORSC position, the problem is a lack of gTLDs.
The more you create, the less problem you have with trademarks,
because for every trademarked name that exists, you have a
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Milton Mueller writes:
Another good example of the blatant irrationality of the assumptions
about user behavior underlying the TM claims.
Pizza Hut thinks that it MUST control "pizza-hut.co.na" exactly why?
They didn't ask for anything within com.na yet. If
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
We have conducted several simulations and have sent that data to the
IESG, IETF and the IANA (Jon Postel) upon someone's request (I
forget who at the moment) and did so over a year ago now.
But where's the beef?
Publish the data. If it
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
We might very well wind up with only a few large
companies as registries, because the others just won't be able to
survive financially.
Good point here, and a dam shame too really. But
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
Eberhard and all,
My god, how many times does it need to be published?
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
We have conducted several simulations and have sent that data to the
IESG, IETF and the IANA (Jon Postel) upon someone's request (I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
We have conducted several simulations and have sent that data to the
IESG, IETF and the IANA (Jon Postel) upon someone's request (I
forget who at the moment) and did so over a year ago now.
Dr. Ebehard W. Lisse writes:
But where's the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
Eberhard and all,
My god, how many times does it need to be published?
JUST ONCE
Indulge us.
Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], jeff Williams writes:
We have conducted several simulations and have
Ellen Rony wrote:
Deja moo.
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse wrote:
Excellent! I shall remember this in the context of effluent from the
rear end of a large animal usually ridden on by highly paid rodeo
cowboys.
I plan to repeat this message whenever the moo fits. It sure beats arguing
over the
I wrote:
I've often wondered why TMOs with
identical marks aren't battling amongst each other for priority rights to
specific, desirable domain names.
Martin Schwimmer wrote:
they do. Juno.com,
dispute between registered TMO and common law TMO
prince.com,
dispute between registered TMO and
At 01:41 PM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I happen to agree with the opinions expressed by Keith Moore, as they
match with my experience.
So I happen to disagree, from my experience.
And?
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their
On 20-Feb-99 Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
With regards to the outlay to register in each TLD we can do roughly
250 * 35$.
Don't forget the fee from one of the many registration services that handle all
of this on behalf of the companies without a clue who can't do it themselves in
house.
Milton Mueller wrote:
Another good example of the blatant irrationality of the assumptions about user
behavior underlying the TM claims. Pizza Hut thinks that it MUST control
"pizza-hut.co.na" exactly why?
[SNIP}
Pizza Hut now has a right to all related character strings in all
jurisidictions,
I plan to repeat this message whenever the moo fits. It sure beats arguing
over the dubuious veracity of simulation data, polling stats, fictitious
shareholder votes, phantom meetings, etc.
Since this noise is coming mostly from one individual, I find it much
easier to just filter out that
These three cases you cite are not on point because they weren't disputes
between two REGISTERED trademark owners. I'm asking if trademark owners
feel they have priority rights to domain names in cyberspace over common
law marks and other legitimate users, why they don't apply the seniority
Roeland Meyer wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Once upon a time, there were some people who thought that if you added
more bandwidth to the Arpanet, the congestion problems that were
occuring at the time would go away. However, it took some studies by
a control theorist to show that changes
To which I would add . . .
The last I heard, the .COM TLD was being resolved
by some of the *root servers*! If we add this to
the table below, it would look like this:
+--+--+---++-+
| ccTLD/gTLD | TLD| 2LD |
At 2/19/99, 03:18 PM, Greg Skinner wrote:
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many more
TLDs on DNS by Keith Moore. You can find it at
But even you would have to admit that by adding lots of TLDs, extra
orders of magnitude are induced in the DNS process, because queries
are going further up the tree than they would otherwise be.
In theory, I would agree with Greg.
In this case, however, .COM requests *always*
go to
At 09:32 AM 2/20/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Roeland Meyer wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
Once upon a time, there were some people who thought that if you added
more bandwidth to the Arpanet, the congestion problems that were
occuring at the time would go away. However, it took some studies
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
snip
Perhaps instead of accreditation, ICANN could establish a
rating system for prospective registries, based on commonly understood
and agreed-upon benchmarks
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 09:32:54AM -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
I am actually responding to Roeland's comment here...
Roeland Meyer wrote:
Sure, but first you'll have to prove that there is a problem, Chicken
Little. Show me a failure mode that I can repeat.
There is no failure mode that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg
Skinner
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
snip
Perhaps instead of accreditation, ICANN could establish a
rating
At 01:17 AM 2/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
Milton Mueller wrote:
Pizza Hut now has a right to all related character strings in all
jurisidictions, in all levels of the domain name hierarchy and regardless of
use or degree of confusion. Quite an astounding claim. It certainly bears no
relationship to
Martin Schwimmer wrote:
Mueller gave pizza-hut.co.na as an example. Dr. Lisse states that Pizza
Hut has no presence in Namibia presently (and I believe he knows whats
available to eat in his country ;-)).
[snip]
I'm looking at an October 1996 article which says a pizza parlor in Phnom
Penh,
Hello Gregbo -- You ask...
}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.
Well, it is very simple! More TLDs make it easier for parties to
share the use of given SLD
Stef,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Einar Stefferud writes:
Because the lack of gTLD names is THE CORE PROBLEM!
Or CORE's problem? :-)-O
el
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
At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse power, I'm quite
sure BIND is capable.
There is a comprehensive discussion of the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wri
tes:
At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether you do it on 2LD, 3LD or even 4LD level, it seems to work, so
why not on TLD level? It's mainly a matter of horse power, I'm quite
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many more
TLDs on DNS by Keith Moore. You can find it at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/email/late.htm
It is submission #423.
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I happen to agree with the opinions expressed by Keith Moore, as they
match with my experience.
So I happen to disagree, from my experience.
And?
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience. No one
Greg,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Skinner writes:
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience.
So, tell us about your experience.
No one knows for sure what will happen when the safe TLD limit is
exceeded.
What safe limit would that
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 10:47 AM 2/19/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>There is a comprehensive discussion of the effect of adding many
more
>>TLDs on DNS by Keith Moore. You can find it at
Another good example of the blatant irrationality of the assumptions about user
behavior underlying the TM claims. Pizza Hut thinks that it MUST control
"pizza-hut.co.na" exactly why? Because someone, somewhere in the world MIGHT
POSSIBLY type that name in? And because that remote possibility
Dr Eberhard W Lisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Skinner writes:
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience.
So, tell us about your experience.
Having worked on and studied some applications that require millions
jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
In the absence of hard data, people will argue their opinion based on
their experience. No one knows for sure what will happen when the
safe TLD limit is exceeded. Anyway, even if TLDs are added a thousand
at a time, I've not
On 19-Feb-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
Also, it seems to me there's been a fair amount of objection to stiff
requirements for operating a TLD registry. Adding more TLDs would
certainly raise the bar, in terms of processing and bandwidth
requirements. In such an environment, the well-heeled
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
jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
If I understand the ORSC position, the problem is a lack of gTLDs.
The more you create, the less problem you have with trademarks,
because for every trademarked name that exists, you have a TLD to put
it in.
THis would be
Einar Stefferud wrote:
Well, it is very simple! More TLDs make it easier for parties to
share the use of given SLD names, each under a distinctly different
TLD, so the faster we add new gTLDS, the faster we will solve the
conflict problems, and conversely, the slower we go the slower we
solve
On 20-Feb-99 Greg Skinner wrote:
William X. Walsh wrote:
Greg Skinner wrote:
At any rate, since the registry business is still in its infancy, I
guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Or not. I don't plan to wait, and I am sure I am not alone.
No offense ...
Martin Schwimmer writes:
Yes, among the reasons why ebay.firm, ebay.inc, ebay.shop and ebay.info
would likely result in confusion is not only because of the much
maligned habit of people guessing, and the use of keyword technology in
browswers, but because of the use of the domain name as a
Milton Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is truly bizarre that so much controversy and investment has gone into
the DNS battle with so little information about how domain names are
actually used.
People assume--and it is basically an undocumented assumption, supported
only by anecdotal
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
Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.
And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD, all SLD names
Stef wrote:
Said TM "experts" discount all TLDs as distinguishing one SLD name
from another, so they want to reduce the number of TLDs to only one.
And of course as soon as they achieve this, they will have shifted the
entire problem down one level to the 3LD level, because with only one
TLD,
77 matches
Mail list logo
