Bill Lovell wroteAt 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>To my previous message,
>>
>>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
>>that trademarks are owned, especially if they are also trade marked,
>>whether in common law or registered with USPTO. It appears that domain
>>names are owned after all.
>Indeed, even more so. The case law says that trademarks are NOT property.
>Their purpose is to benefit the consuming public, not the trademark
"owner."
I don't know about US case law, but under English law trade marks most
certainly are property. They are part of that great division of property,
Intellectual Property. Even in the US they (like domain names) seem to
have the key attributes of property: they can be bought, sold and licensed.
It is true of course that one of the justifications for various parts of
trade mark law is that allowing the owner of a trade mark to enforce it
protects consumers from fraud and deception. Looked at another way, the
trade mark owner is generally allowed to protect the goodwill he has in the
mark against being "ripped off". There is a large and complex body of
legislation and case law on this in most jurisdictions of the world, and
the answers although similar (due to the great harmonisation efforts of
WIPO and others) do differ, particularly between common law and civil law
jurisdictions.
