At 12:24 PM 2/9/99 +0000, Clare Wardle wrote:
>Roeland Meyer wrote:
>>They clearly intend to place a priori restrictions on new Top Level Domain
>>(TLD) names. All of this in the interests of protecting trademark owners.
>
>Trade mark owners don't necessarily benefit by these measures - indeed for
>every trade mark owner who does, there is usually another, or others who
>loses out. Prince Sportwear, for example invoked the NSI policy against
>Prince plc, to try to get prince.com, which succeeded in the first instance
>because Prince plc did not have a registered trade mark. However, as Prince
>plc had goodwill in the name they were able to get an injunction (in
>England) and keep their domain name.
>
>The point of this is that one of them was always doomed to lose out. They
>are both businesses with interests in a particular trade mark. This battle
>is not, as it is constantly being characterised on this list, just about
>business v. individual user.
I understand and agree. I wanted to say "All of this, purportedly, in the
interests of protecting trademark owners." But that includes an arguable
value judgement and there is enough controversy as it is <grin>. I just got
a message from Vint Cerf and I'll replay it here next.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
