you can pass or block laws, to presumably acheieve a desired effect, but ultimately, for a law to bring about that effect requires enforcement. and enforcement has its own set of complexities.

i think that those providing ad feeds should work to filter their ads into distinct, tm class-based categories and perhaps also by geographic market (there are more than few well-extablished businesses who rely on “geoIP” to deliver their services and their customers appear to accept it as accurate or “close enough”. it’s plausible to think arbitrators and judges would too.). there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding among domainers about tm scope. and tm owners may take advantage of that, through intimidation. maybe that’s why the uspto is acepting comments on “bullying”.

no one is going to take away your domains under something like URS without a tm-based justification to do so. and, individual tm’s are limited. they don’t cover every product and service under the sun, they may be localised to a specific geographic market and most importantly, tm law prevents them from intruding on the space allowed for generics. on the internet, that generic space is huge. do domainers really think anyone is going have the internet cleansed of all generics? internet users are some of the most intense bargain hunters in the history of commerce. there will be a generic market, no matter how active the tm lobby. consumers, a potent lobby in their own right, will demand it.

tm owners may be able to regain more of the full online potential of their tm’s through better enforcement mechanisms (and why should we oppose them in doing this?), but those mechanisms may be unsuccessful in encroaching into the territory of generics, no matter how much money tm owners spend.
tm’s are limited. why not learn to work around them? there is plenty of space “in the seams” (which is what some of the most successful domainers have exploited).

We have now published our comments to ICANN on this proposal:

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/07/06/our-comments-to-icann-on-the-urs/

I read the proposal. It’s fairly well written and balanced. In no part did I feel that ICANN is setting this up in a way for overt abuse. I can’t see how the URS will be abused more than the domain registration system. Currently millions of TM infringing domains exist. Until they are eradicated domaining will be looked down on. Domainers should be helping to facilitate that not fight it.

I am hoping this gets passed. If I lose some domains over this so be it.

It would make it much easier for any trademark holder to take domains away

maybe icann.org could be the 1st?

lisa – even the so-called “obvious” names could in fact have legitimate uses and may, however unlikely in reality, actually be used in legitimate ways. even the obvious needs to have a fair and reasonable examination of the facts.

pat – the ICA cannot be everything to every domainer. if registrars management of their own portfolios is a problem for small registrants well thats the nature of marketplace. dont use registrars that do things you dont like – or take them to court. as i understand it the ICA exists to lobby on behalf of all domain owners against outside forces. they are our dobermans. internal disagreements between domainers of whatever kind, be they peers or not, is not and should never be the concern of the ICA.

to put it another way: dont use the dogs to attack each other.

Does this mean that domains.com can shut down thedomains.com if they get a

trademark ?

What happens in a case like domain.com vs domains.com ?