Dan and all,
Good points from a global perspective indeed. The differences in
Trademark law very greatly from country in some aspects as it
applies to types, or whether a thing is property. This is highlighted
most especially with respect to Domain Names. However in US law
that delineation is more distinctive, as we all know.
Dan Steinberg wrote:
> IMHO, this post just highlights the absurdity of all our discussion on
> the interface(s) between domain names and trademarks. From Bill
> Lovell, we have that trademarks are not property (according to the 9th
> circuit, but not necessarily according other circuits).
> >From Clare Wardle, we have that trademarks are property.
> Any day, we will get a post from someone in a civil law jurisdiction
> who will weigh in with the state of the union in their neck of the
> woods.
>
> Domain names are international in scope. Trademarks (despite the best
> efforts of many nations and years of negotiations) are not. Applying
> existing trademark law (especially the lovely uncertainty of the
> difference between Famous Marks and well-known marks) to domain names,
> except on a case-by-case basis in a court of competent jurisdiction
> just doesn't make sense.
>
> Sure the trademark holders have a problem. But here is not the place
> to attempt to solve it. Get laws passed, treaties signed, etc. Then
> come back and tell us what the law is (but we will probably already
> know <g>).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> --
> Dan Steinberg
>
> SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> 35, du Ravin
> Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
