At 11:00 PM 3/1/99 +00-04, Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>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?
They make the suggestion, but if the trademark holder disagrees then the
judge is back to the rather one-sided choice of enforcing TM law or making
new law to cover the suggestion. Judges are NOT in the law making business.
It would probably take an act of Congress.
___________________________________________________
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!
