Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 02:05 AM 2/27/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >On 27-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >> Well, one thing came indirectly out of the trademark/DNS discussions is
> >> that if a TLD name is trademarks, as a TLD name, the root-servers dare not
> >> assign it to anyone else. If they did, it would be an infringement. If I
> >> registered a trademark of .GOSHALMIGHTY, as a commercial trademark for a
> >> TLD, implement same in my private TLD roots, advertise it with my own name
> >> servers, and ICANN assigns it to someone else in the root-servers, then I
> >> will go talk to a judge and win. I might even get punitive damages.
> >>
> >> It is arguable that I might even be able to force NTIA to install such a
> >> TLD into the roots by court order. But I could certainly prevent it, should
> >> I so choose.
> >
> >I don't know that I agree with this. I've CC'd this to the ifwp list to get
> >some feedback there.
> >
> >I think you would still have to make a case that there is likelyhood of
> >confusion, and I think it would depend on the mark. If the mark was very
> >generic in nature, I think it would be much harder to make a case for this
> >position.
>
> As I said, the mark would be registered explicitly as a commercial mark of
> an Internet TLD. Any use of a TLD, carrying such a mark, by someone else,
> for any purpose, would be an infringement.
This would not be necessarily so Roeland, but you are getting close to
what I was eluding to earlier... >;) If I were you I would keep this
to yourself for the time being.... Hint! Hint!
> Even were it only used as a
> private TLD, my name servers would resolve hosts in that TLD, from the
> Internet. Entering that TLD into the roots, with anyone else name servers,
> would be an unlawful infringement of that mark (IANAL) and an unlawful
> interference with my TLD operations.
You are assuming that a "TLD" is Trademarkable as a "TLD" under
current Trademark law. To my knowledge it is not. But you are getting
very close again to what I eluded to earlier.
> It may even be considered a computer
> crime, similar to DNS hi-jacking (redirection) of a dotCOM SLD. Please
> remember that ICANN is a private company, not a regulator. It has no power
> to pass laws or to regulate, whereas the USPTO *is* such a regulator and
> has authority to recognize such a trademark.
Ahhhhhhhhh Roeland you gave it away! Why did you do that? >;)
Oh well the cat is out of the bag now.
> ICANN would have no choice but
> to honor such a trademark. If they should fail to enter it into the root
> then they risk fragmenting the root. This would be a violation of their
> "stability" charter.
Yep sure would. It would also be a potential of an exclusionary and also
anti competitive, which is a federal violation as well.
>
>
> >I doubt punative damanges would come into play unless you could provide it was
> >being done with the intent to cause harm to the trademark holder, but IANAL so
> >I may be incorrect here. I think this also would be hard to prove.
>
> Entering another owner into the root, for such a protected TLD, especially
> once notified of such protection, would be a prime facie case of intent to
> disregard the law.
Yes it would!
> Failing to enter such a TLD into the root, upon request,
> once NTIA blockage of TLD registrations were removed, might also be
> considered harmful, albeit much less clearly so (IANAL). Delaying such
> entry is even less clearly harmful.
Not necessarly less harmful if you can show that there is a potential,
which you should be able to to rather easily based on your private
registration activity in that TLD. Hence you would have a significant
case for severe damages.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
> ___________________________________________________
> KISS ... gotta love it!
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
