Bill quoth:
> "A trademark, even a registered one, is not a property right, like a
> copyright or patent, but merely an identifier of source. Others can
> use the same mark to identify their product, provided there is no
> likelihood of confusion." Door Systems Inc. v. Pro-Line Door
> Systems, Inc., 83 F3d 169, 173, 38 USPQ2d 1771, 1775 (7th Cir.
> 1996).
So the real conflict is that domainname holders *want names to be
salable property, while trademark holders know it isnt any such
thing (but hey, if there's money to be made...)! I bet Socrates will
be rolling in his narrow aisle with laughter when the bubble bursts.
Seriously, isnt it within ICANNs mandate to 'suggest' (in the way
that NSI has made suggestions) that everyones interests will be
better served if any and all contested names are adjusted a la
ibm1.com, ibm2.com, .... ibmn.com? That, in general, each and
every character in a string is significant and non-confusing?
kerry, marking Reggies Strada
