>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:24:55 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["vinton g.
cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From MCI.NET!vcerf Wed Feb 10 19:24:54 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from NOD.RESTON.MCI.NET(nod.Reston.mci.net[166.45.6.38]) (2716
bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:24:53 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from vcerf.reston.mci.net ([166.45.4.166])
> by shoe.reston.mci.net (PMDF V5.2-29 #33823)
> with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed,
> 10 Feb 1999 19:24:31 EST
>Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:24:18 -0500
>From: "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS
>In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>greg,
>
>as far as I know, the categorization of trademarks is
>much more complex than your example suggests and I don't
>think it is uniform across countries, so my guess is that
>this probably would not have helped very much. Trademark
>registration is, at best, an extraordinarily tangled web
>(no pun intended)
>
>vint
>
>At 03:53 PM 2/9/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>"vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>roughly what I said is that domain names must be unique (that is,
>>>only only target "host" can have a given domain name) but that
>>>trademarks, because of the way they are granted, can be applied
>>>to more than one entity (product, service). It is not uncommon
>>>that a telecommunications service company and a bus manufacturing
>>>company having the same trademarked corporate name - MCI in one
>>>case. Because of the ambiguity of trademarks, their use in
>>>domain names leads to a fundamental conflict because there can
>>>be only one entity that can use, e.g. mci.com, as a domain name.
>>
>>If the DNS namespace had been laid out originally with hierarchies
>>that represent the scope of organizational trademarks or service
>>marks, would the trademark interests still have objections? What
>>would the objections be -- name dilution? potential infringement?
>>something else?
>>
>>For example, what if the original plan had accomodated this type of
>>(hypothetical) arrangement:
>>
>>mci.telecommunications.com
>>mci.bus-manufacturing.com
>>
>>The creation of new gTLDs (and perhaps subdomains within them) that
>>can be laid out as a trademark or service mark hierarchy would seem to
>>solve this problem, and it can be solved with the existing technology
>>(provided that the number of gTLDs is not too large).
>>
>>--gregbo
>>
>=================================================================
>
>See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999
>http://www.isoc.org/inet99/
>
>
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
