>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:48:54 -0800 (PST) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [marion Cavanaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 14 21:48:53 1999 >Received: from ww183.netaddress.usa.net (ww183.netaddress.usa.net [204.68.24.83]) > by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA13436; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:48:52 -0800 (PST) >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: 8bit >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id VAA13437 > >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 some >"Interested Parties" that feel or believe that TM's and DN's have some sort of >relationship that is special with regard to Domain Names. These folks that >argue this point usually have very little in depth understanding of Trademark >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 (potentially) a >> >logo that is immediately recognizable even for people that do not read. >> >> Yes, and I wish we could get past the continual comparisons of trademarks >> and domain names. A trademark is geographically specific and context >> sensitive. Trademarks often have other identifying cues; stylistic type >> (see "ty" [tm]), color, and other design elements may be incorporated into >> 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 long 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, which >> may be used anywhere, in any context, and not necessarily for commercial >> 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 intellectual >> 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-author >> The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com >> ================================ // =================================== >> ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA >> // \\ "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 http://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
