[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious to anyone with any working > > knowledge of the Internet. They are twofold: > > > > 1) Trademark enforcement against DNS names at levels below > those assigned > > by TLD registries, or against directory names used within Web > sites, is a > > practical impossibility. The vast majority of names at these levels are > > assigned for private use by the holders of the parent domain > name, not by > > publicly accessible registries. > > Excuse me???? > Tell that to the people who ran afoul of the wrath of Viacom when > they served > up voyager.mydomain.com, klingon.mydomain.com, picard.mydomain.com, etc. A few isolated cases do not change the facts that the number of trademark disputes based on third and lower level domains is dwarfed by those associated with SLDs, and that no trademark holders' group has yet proposed that lower level domains be subject to dispute resolution procedures. > > > > 2) In part because of point 1, consumers' beliefs about the > ownership of > > Web sites and e-mail addresses are typically based on the second-level > > domain names (or third-level for registries that do not > directly delegate > > SLDs), not domain names at lower levels or directory names. > The likelihood > > of consumer confusion based on these names is consequently too small to > > concern most trademark holders. > > Excuse me again??? Its not up to us to decide about likelyhood > of confusion. > If some plaintiff feels worried, that's their call. And it's up > to the court > to agree or disagree with them. Also, considering my response to > your point 1, > it is obvious to me that the likelyhood is not too small to > concern trademark > holders. The other issue you fail to consider is that mark > holders are not > just concerned with a likelyhood of confusion. That's just a > test. They are > also concerned with losing their mark through failure to > vigorously defend it > and a few other issues. I fear your comments reflect a drastic > oversimplification of the issues. > Most trademark holders (Viacom being the proverbial 'exception that proves the rule') would not consider trademark.sld.com worth their time. In most cases, they would never know about its existence - there are undoubtedly still hundreds of machines named 'picard' that remain undiscovered by Viacom. Many more trademark holders would consider a com/net/org SLD registration matching their trademark actionable.
