(I've changed the subject line because I'm moving the discussion with Evan 
into separate threads.)

I wrote:
>> ALAC supporting this dictatorial stance is something I cannot understand

Evan Leibovitch responded:
> If there's going to be real dialogue, this is a good place to start --
> on both process and substance.

So, could you please explain how ALAC came to the conclusion that expanding 
domain name rights for trademark holders to 50 variants of their mark is a 
sensible move? No TM law in the world, so far as I know, includes anything 
about "confusingly similar words" (there's a different standard for graphics, 
but then that's one of the issues with tradeMARKS as they were originally 
envisaged compare to trademarked words (I admit we lost that battle on 
freedom of speech long ago).

The opposition to Amazon, a trademark holder on that word, holding their 
trademark as a gTLD (IIRC you [and ALAC?] have expressed support for the 
opposition to this by the geographic term claimants?) does not seem to fit 
with the idea that Amazn, AMZN (their stock market code) Amazen, Amazin 
("amazin'") and many others should be under Jeff Bezos' control. As Milton 
has always argued, passing off (deliberately creating real confusion in the 
minds of individual as to whether they are seeing Amazon or someone else) is 
clearly restricted, but use of word trademarks in other fields is not. I also 
don't see why 50 words. If the principal is that "similarity" is barred then 
similarity should be barred no matter whether there are ten similar words or 
1000 similar words. Where did this 50 come from? It's likely a camel's nose 
(with the expectation that the rest of the camel will follow) or it's an 
arbitrary exercise of power that can be changed at whim.



-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams                      [log in to unmask]
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan       http://www.a-cubed.info/