Bill Lovell wrote:
> A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari concerning the "domain name case"
> Interstellar Starship Services v. Epix, Inc. was mail filed from New York
> City to the U. S. Supreme Court on Nov. 30, 1999. It may be read (but
> not all the appendices, please) at:
>
> http://209.238.160.155/pet01.htm
>
Very good points and good sequencing, IMO. I remark that the
distinction between domain names and trademarks can be based
on other tests, technically-based, not only the USPTO-based
"locator test". This may support the arguments further, by
showing that technically, in Internet terms, domain names do
not possess the attributes needed for a trademark and are
overly-variable in comparison to a trademark. There a variety
of technical reasons for this as I list in
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_4/gerck/index.html
"The Internet Domain Name System (DNS) allows a user to
associate a name with a resource on the Internet, such as a
machine, an electronic mail address, or a Web site. Trademarks
exist in another, more traditional, name system which permits
a customer to associate a product name with an enterprise, the
mark owner. This paper argues that DNS names are
intersubjective and never objective, while trademarks are
objective and may also be intersubjective."
Further, Internet domain names are global names while marks
are local names (bound by jurisdiction and class). Thus, a mark
is neither necessary nor sufficient to assert the global
intellectual property rights some TM players want to extend
them to -- disrespecting the very basis of TM law in class
and jurisdiction, which is locality. And, technically/logically/legally,
when something is neither necessary nor sufficient to define
another, it means it is quite useless to do so.
> Domain names? Who needs domain names?
We do. And, that is why domain names must remain domain
names and not be limited to marks. Which we also need, but
not masquerading as domain names.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
