At 06:05 AM 2/28/99 +00-04, you wrote:
>
>
>There seem to be three criteria: actual use, not merely descriptive,
>and not *confusingly* similar to other marks. (See Levine et al,
>below.) AFAIK, there is no legal definition of confusion (Im not
>touching it either!), but isnt this the critical issue for domain-
>identifiers? Cyberspace eliminates all other factors (geography,
>sphere of trade) which have served to reduce confusion in the past;
>can those cues be adequately embedded in a string of 64
>characters if we suppose that only the first glance will count? Can
>'tradespace' afford to squander the resource by tolerating one firm's
>commandeering as many possible 'similar' names as possible?
>When pizza-house differs from pizzahut not only by containing
>several 'distinct' chr, but by number as well, or when .com is three
>unique chr compared to .net, isnt the effect of that strategy simply
>to *reduce the level of significance -- that is, increase the
>likelihood of confusion for everyone -- rather than resolve it? Come
>the day that I type in piezo-chit and still find a site claimed by
>PHCorp, I think one could argue that they have diluted their own
>mark.
Hey, I would not at all be embarassed to make that argument in court.
>
>Are names intrinsically purposeful, or do they only 'serve' a
>purpose?
To find the answer to that abstraction, read Plato. Socrates wrestled
with that problem.
Isnt the fundamental issue still whether a name is
>simply a name, and holding a domain name is no different than my
>having a personal name?
>
>kerry, aka rose
That's what the Avery-Dennison case is all about. This gets close to
a case I am now doing, so I shall go no further.
Bill Lovell
>
