Does Pizza Hut own these ?
http://Jump.to/Pizza-Hut
http://This.is/Pizza-Hut
What about the PizzaHut world in http://www.activeworlds.com ?
...should Pizza Hut have the rights to that ?
What about... http://www.pizza.hut ?
or
http://www.hut.pizza ?
and finally... http://www.hot.pizza
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation
vPC + C+@ + IPv8 + 2,048 TLDs...this network solution is simple...
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin B. Schwimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Market Structure Failure
>I didn't pick Sweden by accident. Think about the way in which Sweden's
>NIC administers that ccTLD and you will understand why I said that
>pizza-hut.firm creates issues that pzza-hut.se does not. Yes, third party
>ownership of pizza-hut.se could violate PIZZA HUT'S rights. But which is
>more likely to occur, third party ownership of pizza-hut.se or
>pizzahut.com, for example. I'm not advocating that the world adopts the
>.se policy - there is dissatisfaction among various users for various
>reasons - but Sweden's experience provides some empirical evidence for
>alternatives to the .com model.
>
>
>>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> No, it doesn't. You believe that "pizza-hut.se" is a violation of pizza
>hut's
>>> trademark. You believe that "pizza-hut.firm" is a violation of pizza
hut's
>>> trademark. My understanding of your position is that
>pizza-hut.<anything> is a
>>> violation of their rights. Whether or not that is really your position,
>that
>>> certainly IS going to be the position of Pizza Hut's trademark lawyers.
>That has
>>> been the position of big TMOs with respect to .net, .org, etc.
>>>
>>> So, no, there are no new issues posed by expanding the TLD space. One
>could also
>>> posit that there are no new issues posed by creating new SLD hierachical
>>> categories, (e.g., food.us) as long as TMOs believe that mere
>registration of a
>>> character string corresponding to their TM character string, regardless
>of use,
>>> constitutes a violation of their rights.
>>>
>>> But perhaps this exchange would go somewhere constructive if you would
>explain
>>> what you think those "new" issues are.
>>> --MM
>>>
>>> Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>>
>>> > Not really. New gTLDs create new issues that would not exist if the
new
>>> > gTLDs did not exist. .firm creates issues not currently present with
.se
>>> >
>>> > I would imagine that a better formulation for your subjectless "it is
>>> > about" would be how to create a just procedure that provides a fair
>>> > mechanism for the balancing of the rights of the various parties
>involved.
>>> >
>>> > >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> 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.
>>> > >
>>> > >Not really. All of the threats to pre-existing rights exist--or
>>> > not--regardless of
>>> > >whether "new" gTLDs are created. They exist in current TLDs. It is
not,
>>> > and never
>>> > >has been, about the *application* of existing laws and rights. It is,
>and
>>> > always
>>> > >has been, about the *cost* of policing and enforcing existing laws
and
>>> > rights.
>>> > >
>>> > >--MM
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>> --
>>> M I L T O N M U E L L E R S Y R A C U S E U N I V E R S I T Y
>>> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>/ / / /
>>> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>>> School of Information Studies
>http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
