At 09:31 AM 2/10/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>My position has always been simple: where should the primary burden of
>>protecting trademark interests lie? Answer: The primary burden for policing
>>and enforcement must lie with TM holders, as it always has. This is the way
>>it has always been in the world.
>>
Intellectual property always has its quid pro quo: in patent law, if you
disclose
something new and useful, etc., you get to prevent anyone else from using it
for X years (now 20 years from date of filing), but what you give in return is
that after that period is over, anyone can use the invention. In trademark
law,
you get to use "symbol whatever" in your field as long as you maintain it,
but what you are obliged to give back is the work of "policing" the mark. The
unfortunate part of that scheme is that some TM owners, and we know who
they are, will attack little kids with good domain names under the pretense
of "policing their mark," when there was not the slightest chance that the
domain name of the little kid would ever have caused any confusion in the
market place.
>>Another central point, which is crucial to understanding my next statement,
>>is that market pressure and technological limitations, rather than
>>protection of existing stakeholder interests, should drive the development
>>of technology. The DNS evolved in a particular way for technical reasons.
>>In the absence of TM concern for policing, there is no reason to restrict
>>the advent of new TLDs. similarly, in the absence of concern over policing,
>>there is no reason to impose new restrictions on registries. If other
>>reasons emerge, either market pressure (there is no market for new TLDs) or
>>technical reasons (there is a ceiling to the number of TLDs that can be
>>added), then they impose natural limits.
>>
>>Mr. Schwimmer continues:
>>
>>>If I said victims of reverse DN hijacking that DN owners should accommodate
>>themselves to >the way things are, Mr. Feld would respond how?
>>
>>Reverse hijacking is an artifact of NSI's attempt to protect itself from
>>lawsuits.
Perhaps originally, but that is no longer the case. Several decisions have said
that NSI had NO duty to carry out TM analyses, and the mere registration of
a domain name cannot constitute TM infringement. Consequently, what sorry
excuse there ever existed for their having made the policy that they did is now
gone.
Bill Lovell
