>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:49:25 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [marion Cavanaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From netscape.net!patentattorney Mon Feb 15 00:49:23 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from ww183.netaddress.usa.net([204.68.24.83]) (5632 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net > via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe > (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:49:23 -0500 (EST) > (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18) >Received: (qmail 21483 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Feb 1999 05:46:45 -0000 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Received: from 204.68.24.83 by ww183 via web-mailer(R2.6) on Mon Feb 15 05:46:45 GMT 1999 >Date: 14 Feb 99 21:46:45 PST >From: marion Cavanaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [[dnsproc-en] Re: [IFWP] RE: Trademarks vs DNS] >CC: "domain-open-rsc.org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Domain policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > dnsproc-en <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >I would be very interested in a conversation on >this subject. The U. S. Courts are in the process >now of providing some more guidance on this matter; >there are two cases involving conflicts between = > >trademark and DNs before them now. >As a patent attorney who also does considerable = > >trademark work, I am convinced that if those people >involved in DNs were able to provide leadership to = > >the courts, we would all benefit. I personally do >not know a lot about DNs, and if I did, I would still >have very little interest in trying to provide the >leadership or direction I speak of; but there is no >question in my mind that you could have considerable >influence if you wanted to provide it. >Right now it appears (in the relative vacuum the = > >people in WIPO and DNs generally are creating) the = > >courts will have to define the relationships without >your help; and I sense that DNs will be treated as = > >a special case for trademarks. I suspect that is an >unfortunate result; but without unified guidance I = > >don't see what else the courts can do. >You are aware of the fact that once the courts (and >I am talking about the US) make whatever determination >they make, that is what it will be? I sense they = > >could use some help, and the best way to supply it = > >is through arguments from advocates. Right now, if = > >I were in court, the only argument I could make is = > >that the people in the industry are in a state of = > >disarray, and their opinions are therefore not of = > >much value - as I say, I think that is singularly = > >unfortunate. > >Regards; > >Marion E. "Gene" Cavanaugh, PC > >"What will be will be" > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Ellen and all, > > We couldn't agree with you more here Ellen. It seems that there are so= >me >"Interested Parties" that feel or believe that TM's and DN's have some so= >rt of >relationship that is special with regard to Domain Names. These folks th= >at >argue this point usually have very little in depth understanding of Trade= >mark >Law in the US, and almost none outside the US. There seems to be some >other unknown underlying interest in replaying these arguments which have= > >been argued over and over again for the past 4 years, with the same >eventual conclusion as the outcome.... > >Ellen Rony wrote: > >> Roberto Gaetano wrote: >> >> >A trademark is not only a string of ASCII characters, it is (potential= >ly) a >> >logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read= >=2E >> >> Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademar= >ks >> and domain names. A trademark is geographically specific and context >> sensitive. Trademarks often have other identifying cues; stylistic typ= >e >> (see "ty" [tm]), color, and other design elements may be incorporated i= >nto >> a mark. A trademark must be used in commerce. It must be distinctive,= > >> which means that it cannot be a generic word for a category of products= >, >> rather than a single source. Identical marks may be registered, so lon= >g as >> they are used to identify the source of different classes of goods or >> services. >> >> Now, isn't it clear that this description differs from domain names, wh= >ich >> may be used anywhere, in any context, and not necessarily for commercia= >l >> purposes, so long as each is unique. Trademarks are not domain names. >> Domain names are not trademarks. >> >> Some time long, long ago, the drafters of IP treaties reognized that >> copyrights, patents, and trademarks were different types of intellectua= >l >> property. Now we have yet another type of IP beast--domain names. >> >> So can we please stop trying to force this square peg into a round hole= >? >> >> Ellen Rony Co-autho= >r >> The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.co= >m >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D // =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> ISBN 0879305150 *=3D" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5= >010 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, C= >A >> // \\ "Carpe canine" >> Join the GREY RIBBON CAMPAIGN to bring ICANN out of the shadows. >> See http://www.domainhandbook.com/icannt.html > >Regards, > >-- >Jeffrey A. Williams >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Contact Number: 972-447-1894 >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > > > >____________________________________________________________________ >More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at htt= >p://home.netscape.com/netcenter/mail > -- 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
