On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:38:50 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 12:43:44AM -0500, Gene Marsh wrote:
>> >There are no laws to prevent one person from amassing 200 un-trademarked
>> >generic domain names which was the scenario presented in the discussion.
>> >The discussion, as I understand it, concerns whether or not there should
>> >be.
>> >dc
>> >
>>
>> OK, here you have a point. For example, see www.extreme.com.
>>
>> Still, I wonder whether we are indignant from the unfairness of it or out
>> of jealousy.
>
>Neither. I'm just trying to work out a scheme that deals with the
>problem as I see it. Some people have rights, of various sorts, to
>names. When domain names came along a new and very public name
>space came into existence. The question is how pre-existing rights
>to names are accomodated.
The same way they are accomodated in EVERY other form of commerce.
>While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to
>names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name
>"Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar
>right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among us, so
>first come first serve is a reasonable allocation strategy. But
>someone who goes out and registers 10,000 common surnames for the
>sole purpose of reselling them has less of a right to the name than I
>do. If there were some business that used "Crispin" as a trademark,
>I would say that they fall into the same FCFS pool that I and all my
>(metaphorical) relatives belong to -- we all have a legitimate claim
>to use the name. The speculator does not.
Actually he does, but you don't want to recognize his right and want
to pass regulations that take way his right.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
