Karl, Ed and all, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > No, not at all. Those were my words: > > You put up a lot of words that sounded nice. Then you took it all away > when you said: > > > However, if that REPTAGIN name is taken and is used by a business > > either in commerce, as a TM, as a SM or as a (R) mark, and the > > "speculator" knows this, then there is no risk any more -- there is just > > greed and the "speculator" is trying to obtain financial advantage > > without work. This should be refuted by our legal systems worldwide, > > Those few words are an explosive expansion of trademark rights as they > exist today. I am not sure I see your argument here Karl. As I read Ed's comparison, although it may be a questionable one given the selected DN, I still see Ed's suggesting as just fine and well within the boundaries of US TM law. Am I missing something here? Please, if you would point it out to me based on Ed's selection... > > > You simply want to allow a trademark holder to be able to exclude all > possible other uses of a name. That is, unless the other user also has a > trademark. Ahhh! I see your point in this comment. And well taken as well. I agree. Not to mention the "Common Law TM" situation with regard to just about any DN use, commercially that is. But noncommercial there is defiantly a problem, as you indicate here Karl. Good point! > > > I know absolutely and positively that Ford Motor Company has a trademark > in Ford. Yet, I can open Ford Baked Goods without a hitch of a qualm. In > fact, I can go into national and international distribution. Yes indeed you could. And a place where yet still TM law and additional classes need to yet be defined, even with the new definitions that the USPTO has provided for "Things Internet" this example would be a problem. As such it sets up a very likely or at least possible scenario for "Reverse Name Hijacking" by Ford mtr Company. > > > And here you are saying that I can't get Ford as a domain name (assuming > it were available) without becoming an evil speculator who should be cast > into the pit of darkness. ROFLMAO! Well for Fords and likely WIPO's and ICANN's point of view you are correct. This sort of reminds me of POKEY.ORG. > > > Nonesense. If Ford Motor company sat around and didn't get the domain > name, then too bad for 'em. This has been my stand all along, and remains so unless or until there is a change in US TM law that is sufficient enough to rectify these potential situations as they relate to a DN. > > > Speculators do good things -- they finance start-up companies, they build > office buildings and homes, they provide finacial liquity for those who > might produce future commodities. Sometimes speculators lose their > shirts. > > That's called free-market economics. > > Ford, if it wants the domain name can write a check for it. > > If they don't like the price, then they can get Ford.nu or Ford.web. > > Or they can get or try to acquire FordCars.com. > > If the speculator can't reach an agreement to sell the name to Ford, then > the speculator eats his investment, and worse, as soon as he gives up and > releases the name, Ford, if it were vigalant, could snap it up for all of > $70 - today's street price for abandoned domains. > > The simple fact is that trademark owners who want this law are trying to > subvert the same market system that makes trademarks valuable in the first > place. > > Clearly, if a trademark is so valuable to society that we will allow a > mark holder to take a domain name away from a non mark holder, then surely > we must allow larger mark holders to take domain names away from smaller > mark holders. > > --karl-- 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
