Dan and all,
I principal I agree completely with you here. The problem with rushing in
here is that process is not being observed or really given allot of consideration
even though most of us on these lists are familiar with what has occurred
in recent history.
One of the first steps that Roeland mentioned and I have mentioned
several times as well as being backed up by the USPTO of late,
is that any new Roots running any new TLD's will need to have
those TLD identifiers Trademarked. Which also means they will need
to show commerce on those identifiers (TLD's in this case). They will
also need to have some sort of charter, though it could be fairly
lightweight.
With respect to you comments of "Famous Marks" as it relates
to some of the comments that Stef made today, it would be wise,
as I said in an earlier on a different thread, that anyone or entity
considering using Stef's suggested .ibm, .ford, .att, really think that
decision out very carefully, as both .ford and .ibm would be viewed
as potential dilution, and are internationally famous marks....
Dan Steinberg wrote:
> 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]
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
