At 09:29 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 07:02 PM 3/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >At 04:53 PM 3/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>We're talking past each other. In your example, the regulator does
> >NOT own "KOIN," "WPBS," etc., in spite of the fact that it "owns,"
> >i.e., has control of, that spectral space. :-)
>
> Bill,
>
> This doesn't appear to square with what we discussed earlier on the "DNS vs
> Trademarks" thread. If I may summarize the process we were last discussing,
> * Create a TLD charter
> * Trademark the TLD
> * put it into operation.
> * Defend, in court, if need be (and probably win).
I've been learning a few things. One of which is that I've begun to look at
things in
functional terms rather than mere appearances. (I suffered for some time from
the NSI fungus growth on my brain, but I'm clearing up quite nicely now, thank
you.)
a) I'm not sure what you mean above by a "TLD charter," unless it is that you
"ordain" some set of symbols to be a TLD -- by fiat, you create a TLD.
b) If the TLD serves functionally as routing code, I doubt that it is itself
amenable
to serve as an indicator of source of goods and services. If I want to form a
company called "CAT" that acts as a registrar, registry or whatever, and
being not too stupid I decide to use .cat as the TLD within which everyone
may find all my customers, well hooray for me, but I believe it would be the
company name that would be subject to trademark protection, not the TLD
itself. The difference is that the choice of the company name is entirely my
own, and I can spend my time building up good will for that name. The choice
of a TLD is not an entirely free matter: don't people have to talk to each
other
so that we don't have identical TLDs springing up all over the place? Isn't
there
some bureaucratic entity that "passes on" the entry of new TLDs? I don't
believe it's true that ICANN -- whoops, excuse me -- I can grab up by divine
right whatever little string I want and force the rest of the internet to
accept
my choice. Any set of symbols that -- and not to exaggerate too much here --
requires international approval for use as a routing code (i.e., TLD) can
hardly
be subject to trademark protection. Someone tell me why a TLD is anything
other than a routing code. (And the same as to a domain name, for that matter.)
It's a convention, like BBROYGBVGW -- anyone know what that means?
It's the color code on resistors, expressing their resistance in ohms. When
you (or ICANN, NTIA, UNESCO, NAACP, NFL or whoever) agrees that Sam
down the street gets the TLD .sam, then bully for him, but whatever
relationship that may have with Sam's real business and whatever its
trademarks may be would be quite nebulous.
>
> Yes, I understand, primarily from *your* explanation, that a trademark isn't
> actually owned by the tm-holder. However, for all intents and purposes they
> have the same control as an owner does, along with the additional duty to
> defend that trademark. Are you reversing those statements here?
I believe that issue does not really cross what I'm saying here, and what I
tried to
say earlier. And on what you've said immediately above I don't believe I've
reversed
anything -- or please tell me where you think I have. :-)
Bill Lovell
