Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #359
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 7 2001           Volume 01 : Number 359

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:07:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP

So who has thought through what the UDRP actually does?
Before, a trademark owner could send a complaint and a
certified copy of a trademark registration to NSI, and if
no responsive defense were mounted (i.e., a suit in Federal
Court for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement) the
domain name was gone.  Now, the trademark owner goes
to whoever under the UDRP, there is a "procedure," and
quite properly taking Milton Mueller's figures, in 80% of
the cases the trademark owner prevails and a letter goes
to what used to be NSI -- one can then file suit in Federal'
Court for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. So
what's the difference, except another layer of extra-legal
flapperdoodle that serves as a mere pretense of due
process and pulls the wool entirely over everyone's eyes?

Bill Lovell
http://cerebalaw.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:02:21 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

Tim, that is one of the most rational 'posts' i have seen on this list in a
long time.

to all: Let us use Tim's post as a model of what this list could be:
substantive, objective, and thoughtful.

Thank you

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Tim
Langdell, PhD
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:03 PM
To: Sandy Harris; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

Sandy

I heartily concur. Having been involved in numerous trade mark matters over
the last 20 years, the aspects that remains relatively "sane" in
international trade mark law are (a) it IS international -- that is, having
a US trademark does not give you automatic rights in the UK, or Germany or
Japan or etc, or vice versa, and (b) it protects the use of the same or very
similar marks as long as they use is distinct and consumers will not get
confused as to the true source and ownership of the goods or services
associated with  the mark.

The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the Internet as
it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast majority of worldwide
commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where you have only one TLD (.net
has never gained the same favor) then of course you can only have one owner
of any given name: your example using "Sun" is a good one. While there can
only be one "sun.com" there are probably tens if not hundreds of entirely
legitimate owners of a trademark in the US alone of either the word "sun" or
some variant on it. Considering the world market -- which the Internet is,
we cannot and must not ignore that -- then the number of rightful owners of
the mark "sun" probably spreads to thousands. More, in the case where an
even more commonly used mark is used as an example (please, no one respond
that my figures are incorrect -- this is "for example" only and I am not
meaning to say I have researched the trade mark "sun" per se in all
countries world wide -- that said entering the search term "sun" in just the
USPTO TM database gives 6,820 "hits").

Even an attempt to rely on "famous names" (an old fall back in the IP world)
cannot work: you cannot say that the most famous name holder for a given
trade mark name is the one who should have the right to a given "TMname.com"
as what is "famous" varies from country to country/territory to territory.
And it is not inconceivable that two identical marks could both achieve
famous name status for two quite distinct markets within the same
country/territory.

Also, blind application of existing trademark registrations alone to
deciding who has a right to a given domain name does not allow for the quite
reasonable claim that one can build a worldwide commercial entity based
solely on the web (e.g. Amazon.com) which then can be argued to have
legitimate claim to a trademark (arguably "amazon.com" rather than purely
"Amazon" -- but I wont go deeper on that here .. ) even if there is a strong
rights holder in the same name (here "amazon") in any given territory in the
world. Rights are established (and preserved) through USE in most trademark
law worldwide: you do not have to register your mark to claim rights to
protect it or to claim ownership of it. Registration per se does NOT confer
ownership of a mark in any absolute sense (that is why most worldwide TM
registries have a process such as a right to petition to cancel, etc).

What we have right now is the equivalent of a single street on which
international commerce is asked to situate (yes I know there are country
codes -- but the dominance of ".com" cannot be denied). And applying the
rule that no two store fronts on this one street can have the same name even
if they have established ownership rights in that name elsewhere, is clearly
a broken model.

In sum, no matter what is done using the UDRP or by WIPO or ICANN or etc is
likely to be subject to reasonable criticism. So long as we have just ".com"
dominant, then they are in a no-win situation resolving name disputes in
many if not all cases.

Yes, I know that .biz is about to happen, but that is clearly not in and of
itself a solution as it will marginally lessen the current problem but come
no where close to curing it. Indeed, it is arguable that the introduction of
just one major new alternate to .com will worsen the situation, not help it
(I can go into that later if you wish ...)

In all, I can see no stronger argument for the need for more TLDs to enable
a more rational use of marks in worldwide Intent commerce: the need for more
usable English language (roman.roman) names, and the need for more
multilingual names. Ultimately, Trademark owners should welcome new TLDs not
fear them.

Tim

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Harris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

> Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > The law in most countries "institutionalizes trademark favortism".  It
has
> > done that rather longer than ICANN has been around...
>
> However, it also protects multiple uses of a trademark. Sun Microsystems,
> Sun Oil, the Sun and Surf Resort, ... and provides procedural safeguards
> for the rights of the alleged violator.
>
> > If you mean that the UDRP provides ADDITIONAL benefits to trademark
> > holders, well, that becomes a finer point of debate.
>
> It isn't entirely clear to me what the URDP was designed to accomplish,
but
> it seems cleat that in practice at least some decisions (bodacioustatas
leaps
> to mind) gave benefits to trademark owners that go way beyong anything
they'd
> be legally entitled to in any juritiction I know of.
>
> > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
>
> Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> attacked using it.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:09:22 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hello Kent,

Saturday, April 07, 2001, 11:18:22 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:04:44PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>> 
>> If the adjudicators cannot get this right on their own -- and there seems to
>> be considerable evidence that at least they haven't to date -- then methinks
>> we need some explicit guidance added to the UDRP.
>> 
>> In particular:
>> 
>> A satire domain -- say, ibm-sucks.com or Incomplete-But-Marketable.net --
>> is entirely legitimate.

> One of the fundamental problem in that notion, however, is that "satire"
> is an intrinsically subjective judgement.  The UDRP is an arbitration
> proceeding, not a court; the rules of procedure are much simpler, and
> the safeguards are not as elaborate. 

Which is exactly why the UDRP should not in place as a mandatory
option.

The UDRP should be entirely voluntary, since the safeguards that do
not exist in law cannot be provided by the UDRP to the domain owner.

The domain owner should have the option of forcing the complainant to
pursue a court case, instead of losing a UDRP case and then having to
bear the brunt of the cost of a court case in order to prevent the
loss of their domain name after a faulty UDRP decision.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:03:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 11:14:03AM -0700, Tim Langdell, PhD wrote:
[..]
> > > Also, multiple non-conflicting uses -- as in Sun Oil and Sun
> Microsystems,
> > > both valid trademarks in at least the US -- should be explicitly
> allowed.
> >
> > It is.
> 
> I presume you meant "they are". But the point being made was that currently
> only one entity can have (say) "sun.com" even though there might be equal
> claimants on the name (Sun Oil and Sun Microsystems to name but two). So the
> answer is "they are not allowed".

The fact that the domain name system provides unique names is a given,
and that was not the question.  (Or if it was the question, then the
answer is "it's irrelevant" -- a fundamental change to the DNS is
irrelevant to ICANN at this point in time.) I was assuming the relevant
question, which is: "Is 'multiple conflicting uses' allowed for in the
UDRP?".  It is. 

> > > The burden of proof for alleged conflict is on the complainant.
> >
> > It is.
> 
> Not so if the system makes any basic assumption at all as to fundamental
> rights.

I view "burden of proof" as an objective matter of procedure, and
largely independent of assumptions about "fundamental rights".  The
system is an arbitration system, for resolving disputes.  The
complainant must make a showing of (as I recall) that three basic
conditions exist; the respondent will contest those.  But an arbitrator
could throw out a complainants case simply on the grounds that the
complainant had not established that the three conditions exist. 

> For instance if one assumes that ownership of a "registered"
> trademark gives some fundamental right then the burden of proof switches to
> the defendant, which to some seems unfair.

Fair or unfair, true or not, it doesn't switch the burden of proof.  
The complainant must still make his case.  A reversal in the burden of 
proof would be where any complainant is automatically given the domain 
unless the defendant proved that he should not be.

It is true that in some of the bad decisions the arbitrator seems to be
careless about whether the complainant really makes their case; many
people think that the UDRP rules should be made more clear in several
areas. 

> To other seems entire fair. Where
> it gets complicated is that you do not have to have a registered trademark
> in any given country to "own" a trademark. You can claim rights based on
> common law entirely legitimately.

...in some jurisdictions.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:17:14 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VOTE

Hello Sotiropoulos,

Voting deadline has passed, and once it is passed, the email address
is set to bounce emails.

Saturday, April 07, 2001, 11:47:44 AM, Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I am having trouble sending my second vote ballot to [email-masked]  My emails are being returned undelievered.  

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Individual

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:27:44 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VOTE

Hello Sotiris!

> I am having trouble sending my second vote ballot to [email-masked]  My
> emails are being returned undelievered.

You wrote your message at Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:47:44 -0400
- -- are you sure you sent your ballot before 16:00 UTC
(9:00 Los Angeles, 12:00 New York) today? That was the
deadline for voting.
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html)

By the way: That also means for our candidates that the
recommended number of postings is back to >five< per day!

Best regards,
/// Alexander [1 ;)]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:38:03 -0400
From: "Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VOTE

Actually, my first ballot was already acknowledged... what was the deal with
the second ballot, anyway?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Individual
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] VOTE

>
> Hello Sotiris!
>
> > I am having trouble sending my second vote ballot to [email-masked]  My
> > emails are being returned undelievered.
>
> You wrote your message at Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:47:44 -0400
> -- are you sure you sent your ballot before 16:00 UTC
> (9:00 Los Angeles, 12:00 New York) today? That was the
> deadline for voting.
> (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html)
>
> By the way: That also means for our candidates that the
> recommended number of postings is back to >five< per day!
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander [1 ;)]
>
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:36:50 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 12:03 pm -0700 4/7/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is true that in some of the bad decisions the arbitrator seems to be
>careless about whether the complainant really makes their case;

IIRC, in a recent case (garthbrooks.com?) the arbitrator freely admitted
that the respondent was not using the name in bad faith, but then decided
that since he could do so in the future, that the name should go to the
complainant.

>many
>people think that the UDRP rules should be made more clear in several
>areas.

I think the BIGGEST problem is that there is nothing in the rules to deal
with arbitrators (or their providers) who continuously make bad decisions.
That ICANN allows NAF to continue to use supplementary rules that are in
complete contravention of ICANN's rules speaks VOLUMES about ICANN's
preferential treatment of IP interests.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:42:50 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

"Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> 
> Sandy
> 
> I heartily concur. Having been involved in numerous trade mark matters over
> the last 20 years, the aspects that remains relatively "sane" in
> international trade mark law are (a) it IS international -- that is, having
> a US trademark does not give you automatic rights in the UK, or Germany or
> Japan or etc, or vice versa, and (b) it protects the use of the same or very
> similar marks as long as they use is distinct and consumers will not get
> confused as to the true source and ownership of the goods or services
> associated with  the mark.
> 
> The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the Internet as
> it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast majority of worldwide
> commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where you have only one TLD (.net
> has never gained the same favor) then of course you can only have one owner
> of any given name: your example using "Sun" is a good one.

I borrowed it from:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/dns-economist.html

Methinks Gilmore was right in that 1996 letter, especially:

" If roadrunner.com sells cartoons or Acme Anvils, it is in trouble; if it
" sells computers, Warner Brothers has no legitimate complaint. Network
" Solutions Incorporated (NSI) has shown itself poor at adjudicating such
" complaints. That is a job for the courts, which have procedural protections
" for the innocent as well as proper punishments for the guilty.

Arguably, the UDRP is a mistake, usurping a job that should be left to the
courts. Of course, there's also merit in the counter-argument that courts
are ineffective and horribly expensive because of the international nature
of the net, so we need a UDRP. 

Methinks rehashing that debate is pointless. We have it. How do we improve
it? 

Crocker: 
> > > As has been noted frequently, the UDRP needs enhancement.  But let's not
> > > attribute more precedent to it or ICANN than is valid.
> >
Me:
> > Specifically, it needs better protection for the domain holders who are
> > attacked using it.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:46:58 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VOTE

> Actually, my first ballot was already acknowledged...
...so that ballot counted.

> what was the deal with the second ballot, anyway?
It was sent out after Jonathan Weinberg announced that he
intended to remove himself from consideration as GA chair.
Everyone's last vote counts; the ballot was just resent in
case some people had already deleted the original vote
message. But voting once was perfectly sufficient.

Best regards,
/// Alexander [2]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:11:51 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:43 PM

> Arguably, the UDRP is a mistake, usurping a job that should 
> be left to the
> courts. Of course, there's also merit in the counter-argument 
> that courts
> are ineffective and horribly expensive because of the 
> international nature
> of the net, so we need a UDRP. 
> 
> Methinks rehashing that debate is pointless. We have it. How 
> do we improve
> it? 

su - ; rm -rf *UDRP* *WIPO* *WTO* ; bye
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:11:31 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

"Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:

> The key problem with applying trade mark law unthinkingly to the Internet as
> it stands at this moment in time, is that the vast majority of worldwide
> commerce is under the ".com" domain. And where you have only one TLD (.net
> has never gained the same favor) then of course you can only have one owner
> of any given name: your example using "Sun" is a good one. While there can
> only be one "sun.com" there are probably tens if not hundreds of entirely
> legitimate owners of a trademark in the US alone of either the word "sun" or
> some variant on it. Considering the world market -- which the Internet is,
> we cannot and must not ignore that -- then the number of rightful owners of
> the mark "sun" probably spreads to thousands. More, in the case where an
> even more commonly used mark is used as an example (please, no one respond
> that my figures are incorrect -- this is "for example" only and I am not
> meaning to say I have researched the trade mark "sun" per se in all
> countries world wide -- that said entering the search term "sun" in just the
> USPTO TM database gives 6,820 "hits").

Of course there are (partial?) solutions to these problems that do not
involve UDRP or any other action involving registries or registrars and
their customers, the Second Level Domain holders.

ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only charter. Let WIPO
administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.

WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register marks.net or
some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains as
they please.

Anyone could create a search engine, or various companies could enhance
their existing ones, to use a trademarks database.

Given sufficient buy-in from trademark holders and good marketing, either
a web site or a search engine could quickly become well known, the site
everyone goes to for info on trademarked products. They might even make
a bundle.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:11:35 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 11:18 AM 4/7/2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:04:44PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > Also, multiple non-conflicting uses -- as in Sun Oil and Sun Microsystems,
> > both valid trademarks in at least the US -- should be explicitly allowed.
>
>It is.
>
> > The burden of proof for alleged conflict is on the complainant.
>
>It is.

ICANN-related discussion lists often must process comments and queries that 
are not really a matter of debate as they are a matter of basic 
education.  That is, the poster is concerned about understanding the actual 
terms and conditions of ICANN-related activities.

There will always be new people involved, needing to obtain detailed 
background about ICANN-related facts.

The question is how to provide them with the necessary material, short of 
saying 'go read the following mass of documents'?

Constantly having to go over basic material on these lists is extremely 
inefficient.

Any suggestions.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:13:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] percentages and numbers of cases

Of course very few cases have been taken to court.  The losers who have
the good cases are frequently people without money and without lawyers.  
That's one reason they lost when they should have won.

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I'm not aware of that figure of overturn of trademark cases under the UDRP.
> But, then, maybe a lot of cases haven't been taken to court, after a UDRP
> decision?  Sometimes percentages can appear very significant, if one doesn't
> know the number of cases.  So, it could be factual, but representative of a
> small number of cases pursued. Could that be the situation?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 11:39 AM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Dave Crocker; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> > Anyone had better take that position seeing how we are looking at about
> %80
> > overturn ratio in federal courts upon WIPO type decisions.
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> I believe others besides myself would be interested in the cases behind
> the 80% figure. Could you please provide some references? It would be much
> appreciated.
> 
> 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> /\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> \/
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:19:08 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

At 1:11 pm -0700 4/7/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:43 PM
>
>> Arguably, the UDRP is a mistake, usurping a job that should
>> be left to the
>> courts. Of course, there's also merit in the counter-argument
>> that courts
>> are ineffective and horribly expensive because of the
>> international nature
>> of the net, so we need a UDRP.
>>
>> Methinks rehashing that debate is pointless. We have it. How
>> do we improve
>> it?
>
>su - ; rm -rf *UDRP* *WIPO* *WTO* ; bye

#ls -l *ICANN*

- -rw-rw-r--    1 staff ipinterests     1394 Feb  6 00:48 ICANN.input.acceptance

#chmod 666 ICANN.input.acceptance

Ah. That's better

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:28:42 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] ICANN benefits

Hello Kent,

Saturday, April 07, 2001, 12:03:33 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> I view "burden of proof" as an objective matter of procedure, and
> largely independent of assumptions about "fundamental rights".  The
> system is an arbitration system, for resolving disputes.  The
> complainant must make a showing of (as I recall) that three basic
> conditions exist; the respondent will contest those.  But an arbitrator
> could throw out a complainants case simply on the grounds that the
> complainant had not established that the three conditions exist. 

Provided, of course, that they didn't have an incentive to rule for
plaintiffs built into the system.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:31:53 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:12 PM

> ICANN could create a .mark TLD with a trademarks-only 
> charter. Let WIPO
> administer it or choose and instruct a contractor to do so.
> 
> WIPO could create .mark.wipo.org, or anyone could register 
> marks.net or
> some such name. Once they've done that, they can assign subdomains as
> they please.

We've already covered this possibility in WG-B. See the archives for why it
won't work.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:37:06 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:12 PM

> Constantly having to go over basic material on these lists is 
> extremely 
> inefficient.
> 
> Any suggestions.

In the case under discussion here. The most complete argument is in the WG
archives. It really can't be summarized without losing a lot of content. The
appropriate response really is RTFA, in this case. Both pro and con
arguments were made and multiple inter-locking conclusions were drawn. The
answer was very complex and the reasoning was moreso. It didn't help that
some of the discussion over-flowed into WG-C.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:37:58 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] trademark issues

- --part1_ae.1342682b.2800d4a6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pat..

I can give you one even more complicated which will probably end up before 
the courts before it is over and is totally mind-boggling in many areas. 

The term bull and bear is symbolic of markets the world over and dates back 
to the 15th century at least - probably longer.   Both the NYSE and the 
Singapore exchange have statues in their lobbies - and probably a lot more 
firms.  The bull is symbolic of a market going up - or a person who buys and 
a bear symbolic of a market going down - or a person who sells.  It is used 
as a noun, adjective and verb or a part of it and absolutely no idea in how 
many languages.    In addition, of course, there are the animals and the 
thousands of sports teams who use part of it  - but they don't count :)  

In researching it, the first use I could find goes back to the Vatican.   The 
term was first used as bulla-beara - which was a hated term for the messenger 
delivering the bad notices from the Vatican - like a financial statement of 
taxes owed, property being repossessed, or your head if you were a woman 
involved in adultry :)  .. The bulla being a leather pouch  or bull a 
proclamation issued by teh Pope.   The bearea is , of course, the bearer of 
such bad news.  The term "boogie bear" also goes back to it too.   

In my opinion, there is absolutely no way a name like this can be protected 
by trademark laws even tho one was granted on Bull & Bear.    You have to be 
able to police or control the use of your trademark which is impossible in 
this case since every paper in the world would be in violation, along with 
restaurants, bars, clubs, jewelry, reports, books, magazines, t-shirt mfgrs, 
etc., etc., etc. 

Last time I checked there were over a million uses of it on the internet, and 
some 800 sites registered using it or one part  of it - yet one corporation 
TM owner  claims rights to it which is ridiculous.

Of course, I'm prejudiced!  :)

jess

In a message dated 4/7/2001 2:03:03 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

>>In Australia, nobody would associate "Freedom Furniture" with "Freedom 
Tampons"
but everybody would easily recognise the two very well lnown brands.

I don't know whether they both have exactly the same mark "Freedom" but 
clearly
they could have.  Both would be entitled to claim the domain name>>

- --part1_ae.1342682b.2800d4a6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>Pat..
<BR>
<BR>I can give you one even more complicated which will probably end up before 
<BR>the courts before it is over and is totally mind-boggling in many areas. 
<BR>
<BR>The term bull and bear is symbolic of markets the world over and dates back 
<BR>to the 15th century at least - probably longer. &nbsp;&nbsp;Both the NYSE and the 
<BR>Singapore exchange have statues in their lobbies - and probably a lot more 
<BR>firms. &nbsp;The bull is symbolic of a market going up - or a person who buys and 
<BR>a bear symbolic of a market going down - or a person who sells. &nbsp;It is used 
<BR>as a noun, adjective and verb or a part of it and absolutely no idea in how 
<BR>many languages. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, of course, there are the animals and the 
<BR>thousands of sports teams who use part of it &nbsp;- but they don't count :) &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>In researching it, the first use I could find goes back to the Vatican. &nbsp;&nbsp;The 
<BR>term was first used as bulla-beara - which was a hated term for the messenger 
<BR>delivering the bad notices from the Vatican - like a financial statement of 
<BR>taxes owed, property being repossessed, or your head if you were a woman 
<BR>involved in adultry :) &nbsp;.. The bulla being a leather pouch &nbsp;or bull a 
<BR>proclamation issued by teh Pope. &nbsp;&nbsp;The bearea is , of course, the bearer of 
<BR>such bad news. &nbsp;The term "boogie bear" also goes back to it too. &nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>In my opinion, there is absolutely no way a name like this can be protected 
<BR>by trademark laws even tho one was granted on Bull &amp; Bear. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You have to be 
<BR>able to police or control the use of your trademark which is impossible in 
<BR>this case since every paper in the world would be in violation, along with 
<BR>restaurants, bars, clubs, jewelry, reports, books, magazines, t-shirt mfgrs, 
<BR>etc., etc., etc. 
<BR>
<BR>Last time I checked there were over a million uses of it on the internet, and 
<BR>some 800 sites registered using it or one part &nbsp;of it - yet one corporation 
<BR>TM owner &nbsp;claims rights to it which is ridiculous.
<BR>
<BR>Of course, I'm prejudiced! &nbsp;:)
<BR>
<BR>jess
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 4/7/2001 2:03:03 PM Central Daylight Time, 
<BR>[email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>&gt;&gt;In Australia, nobody would associate "Freedom Furniture" with "Freedom 
<BR>Tampons"
<BR>but everybody would easily recognise the two very well lnown brands.
<BR>
<BR>I don't know whether they both have exactly the same mark "Freedom" but 
<BR>clearly
<BR>they could have. &nbsp;Both would be entitled to claim the domain name&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_ae.1342682b.2800d4a6_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #359
************************