Comments on: Fight Against New Extensions

By: MHB

MHB — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:29:51 +0000

Seb

I see what you mean doesn’t look quick and simple does it?

By: Seb

Seb — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:24:26 +0000

That’s what i meant Mike : confusingly similar to an existing domain name (or site if the domain has content).
If you can prove your domain has traffic then there’s a likelyhood of consumer confusion.

But we’re not there yet.
When you take a look at this ICANN draft for the new gTLD evaluation process :
http://www.icann.org/topics/gtld-evaluation-process-16jun08.pdf
applicants will have to be very patient, motivated and wealthy….
Looks like the road to hell.

And if someone is willing to submit a proposal that would move one domain we own from the left to the right of the dot, i’ll object for “EXISTING LEGAL RIGHTS” (one of the 4 objection criteria).

In order to have more weight, contacting owners of the same keyword in all other registered gTLDs and ccTLDs would help getting the application rejected.
United we are stronger.

By: MHB

MHB — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:00:41 +0000

Guys

I think an argument can be made based on a “common law” right for some operating “famous” websites”

Basically in addition to registered trademarks, common law trademarks are based on use and rather than registration.

Don’t forget the standard of trademark infringement is if they are “confusingly similar” to a trademark registered or common law.

“”"The key to pursuing trademark infringement is often the existence of “consumer confusion”"”

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/trademark-lawyer

Now what the argument of the author of the guest post was making that is you had a famous site that you operated for many years like say bahamas.com (which is operated by the bahamas government) and someone wanted a .bahamas extension the .com holder could argue that such extension infringes on its use as it would tend to confuse the public.

I don’t know how the court might rule on this, but as technology changes courts have faced issues they never had before.

Just because the right did not exist before does not mean the court would not grant such rights now.

By: Dmitry

Dmitry — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 06:46:15 +0000

I would not support ICANN’s TLD buffet either, but I really don’t see how a dilution of intellectual property class action could really hold up… If I own X.com , for example, and someone makes X a TLD , I would only have grounds on which to base a lawsuit in the case that “X” happens to be my trademark… not “X.com” Can Rick Schwartz sue the owner of candy.us (if that someone is not Rick as well, I haven’t checked…)? I don’t think so, and he cannot do so for the same reasons that he’d have no case against someone applying for a .CANDY TLD. Now, he MAY have a decent chance of submitting an application to set up a registry to control .CANDY (to protect his “Candy.com” TM) but he may be outbid by Hershey(R) Foods Corporation, among other prospective competing applicants.

If you reason using Seb’s original logic, any possible WEB ADDRESS with the term X “dilutes” your IP asset (seems a little ridiculous, as X is usually a generic word or phrase in most of our cases…) Why does it matter whether the “X” comes before or after the decimal point, regardless of what “X” actually is (could be WeLoveX.com , or maybe IHateAllXsintheWorld.net)

Who is to say that .COM TLD is more important than all the others and the ones that are yet to be, anyway? Maybe Google…

I guess the main point is that there is absolutely no dilution going on here, and no case to be made from that legal angle, IMO. Are there other options?

Of course I may be mistaken… I am not a lawyer and have yet to go to law school.

By: Dmitry

Dmitry — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:54:19 +0000

“Rick Schwartz should [sue] if someone wants a .candy or a .property”

What are you talking about? Candy and property are generic terms – which is why Schwartz could register them in the first place. He does not have a monopoly on either all candy nor all property in the world… Candy is not his trademark, “Candy.com” is. Please explain how Schwartz would have any grounds to sue ICANN based on owning Candy.com , your original claim doesn’t make much sense to me…

By: Interesting posts June 2008

Interesting posts June 2008 — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:33:41 +0000

[...] Perhaps the most important event this month was ICANN’s decison to relax the rules about naming domain name extensions. Now anyone with enough cash can buy their own domain extension. So we could easily see new top level domains like .sex, .london and .eBay. Is this a disaster waiting to happen or will this open up the pool of available domains. See what expert domainer Elliot Silver has to say on this development and see what other people are saying about ICANN’s decision in this post on TheDomains.com blog. [...]

By: Don't panic, fight back - dnlocal

Don't panic, fight back - dnlocal — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:44:29 +0000

[...] back Don’t panic, fight back, things are getting ugly…. This guy asks us to fight back: Fight Against New Extensions …while this one asks not to panic! Domain Name Wire __________________ Dreamhost has offered [...]

By: Damir

Damir — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:07:32 +0000

Fantastic post – great response.

It is nice to read that I am not the only one thinking that way.

By: MHB

MHB — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:47:53 +0000

Just made a new post along these lines.

Please check it out

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:46:43 +0000

As it was mentioned in an earlier comment, I’m sure Icann plans to move to Switzerland and gain Int’l organization status which will drastically reduce their legal exposure and any accountability or transparency to stakeholders.

Icann needs the new tld revenue source to pay for their move to Switzerland.

If Icann had to get the U.S. gov’t approval for the new tlds, would they get it?

Or, would it get vetoed like the .xxx tld proposal?