Notsofast...
Before we (or anyone else) can cede famous names, we need an
appropriate international definition of 'famous names'. Right now
most of the world uses 'well known marks' in the trademark arena, and
that's as good as it gets. Remember, that's just the trademark
arena. Outside of trademark law, I defy anyone to come up with an
internationally acceptable definition of 'famous names' (other than "I
know one when I see one").
And even in the trademark arena, there is currently no uniform
definition (and interpretation) of well-known marks. The test in one
country is not necessarily the same in another country. The recent
press release about well-known marks is not yet law. For that, WIPO
member states have to pass enabling legislation.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but just because I think .att is associated
with a certain firm doesn't mean everyone in the world does (actually
I would first think of .at&t before I thought of .att but that's
another story).
The point being that it will 'fairly' difficult to make such
allocations. why should ford motor company get .ford instead of the
ford agency? Give male teens the choice between supermodels and super
trucks, I wouldnt want to bet on the outcome. And I am sure that
somewhere in the world. the alpha string 'ibm' is strongly associated
with something other than a certain company with headquarters in the
state of New York. Etc. etc.
I like Christopher Ambler's suggestion. Nothing is automatic. If
someone who happens to have a US Famous Mark wants to run a TLD, it is
possible but not guaranteed. There still has to be a process.
Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> So, what is wrong with .ibm, .att, .ford, .etc?
>
> Lets cede all famous names to have TLD registries, and reserve the TLD
> space for them. Then they can mount thier TLD if they want to step up
> to the reguirements of running a TLD service for themselves.
>
> This requires a lasrger commitement than to just get an SLD.
> Specifically, it means committing to collaboration with all other TLD
> registries to coordinate the ROOT. And perhaps to also run a
> Secondary ROOT server;-)...
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:05:23 -0800:
> }
> }At 09:38 AM 4/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> }>"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> }>
> }>>Heaven's no! That's why I've kept talking about the "net gods" and the fact
> }>>that www.xxx.yyy.zzz cannot be equal to www'.xxx'.yyy'.zzz'. Once you
> }>>(or somebody) factors in the fact that your "chartered TLD" is itself a
> }>>private net, then all those problems disappear. But so long as it's a TLD,
> }>>by which I mean, not to lose communication here, it is on the same "level"
> }>>as .com, .org, etc. (anyone not know what I mean by that?), the need to
> }>>establish that "private" TLD in concurrence with ICANN and other god-like
> }>>entities still remains, does it not?
> }>
> }>Why must your secure domain be established as a TLD? Any level of the
> }>domain tree should be sufficient.
> }
> }Technically correct. However, a TLD has additional marketing considerations.
> }
> }>Furthermore, my guess is that if people start registering TLDs as trademarks
> }>en masse, eventually we will have the root(s) filled with .ibm, .att,
> }>.yahoo, etc.
> }
> }
> }yes, I expect that. By the same token, I expect that to also limit the rush
> }as not everyone has a trademark-able name.
> }___________________________________________________
> }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!
> }
> }
--
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]
