See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In any event, no one denies that there are defenses to tm infringement, and
no one other than NSI advocates any type of proceeding that limits the DN
owner's right to assert defenses, so your listing of the various defenses
to infringement is besides the point.
At 01:14 PM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
>>are asking that if gTLDs are to be added (which I don't think should be
>>classified as re-engineering) that those who seek to own and operate these
>>new ventures be respectful of other people's pre-existing rights. These
>>rights have been created and are protected under national trademark and
>>unfair competition laws and various international treaties. Mueller made
>>the ipse dixit claim that such rights don't exist. He may not like that
>>they exist and he is entitled to his opinion, although he masquerades his
>>personal opinions as pronouncements on the law. He is wrong about the law.
>
>These "rights" exist solely with regard to the USAGE of the domain name,
>and as such, exist in a narrow set of circumstances, and not as a blanket
>right across all uses. These "rights" also extend to those areas not
>grounded in national trademark, unfair competition, or international
>treaties. These "rights" include the right to parody, free speech, choice
>of business name, use of personal names, use of common English (and other
>language) words, and others. As such, blanket prohibitions based solely on
>trademark right, or some trumped up right of "unfair competition" should
>extend ONLY to the actual usage of the domain name.
>>
>>So the topic at issue here is whether the domain name registration system
>>should be expanded without recognition of the legal rights of others - or
>>perhaps there can be some reasonable compromise.
>
>As the usage, and not the mere existance of identical character strings as
>IP number identifiers is the real issue, this is indeed an attempt to
>re-engineer the DNS to conform with policy, and not with technical matters.
>
>
>
>
