Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> You wrote:
> > If trademark is included then we also need the other valid groups who use
> > names outside of trademark:
> >
> > Small businesses
> >
> > Local businesses
> >
> > Churches
> >
> > Schools
> >
> > Charitable groups
> >
> > Amateur sports teams
> >
> > Writers
> >
> > Parents naming children
> >
> > People naming pets, objects, computers, or anything
> >
> > etc
> >
> > In other words, everybody.
> >
> Fine.
> Do you have a business case for it? Do you really think that "amateur sports
> teams", for instance, have been so influential in the history of DNS wars as
> Trademarks? If yes, join the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list and propose it.
> You may have consensus on it ;>)
>
Roberto,
Karl, myself, Mikki, Carl Oppedahl and many others have been making a
'business case' for this for several years now.
DNRC exists as an organization because there was a case for it. This
is not a case of defining classes like 'amateur sports teams' just to
make a seeminly rediculous comparison to trademark interests. We are
talking about words here. Words in multiple languages. Trademarks
are a specific instance where certain words have been granted special
status. That special status has been carefully enshrined and limited
in statute and caselaw. The key word is 'limited'. A trademark
comes with explicit and implicit limitations. It doesn't mean you
'own' the word, except in a few limited exceptions. The recent
'Pokey' case illustrates my point. It was a rediculous situation for
all to be in, especially the owners of the mark. It was in fact bad
for their business. Adverse publicity is bad for business. On the
other side of the coin, if mere users of the words (as opposed to mark
holders) are not represented, the abuses (and no one can deny there
are abuses on both sides) will make a nice raison d'etre for
legislation.
Mark holders want to be at the table because existing law doesn't give
them enough of what they want and they can't reasonably expect to get
legislative changes. Stack the deck in the direction of mark holders
and the little guys 'n gals will petition their congresscritters,
lawsuits will be launched with great publicity, Commerce deptartment
will look at the mess and come to the conclusion that "No, we can't
hand over this mess to ICANN/DNSO quite yet." So yes, it is quite
easy to make a business case for bringing other users of words to the
table. It is in your interest. No, the others don't have as much
money and lobbying clout as the trademark interestes. But as ORSC and
BWG demonstrated, you don't need to have large bags of money and
lobbying clout to have an impact. Just good ideas.
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin
Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
