Consumer protection of basic trademarks is in the public interest, but over excessive protection of trademarks to the exclusion of other types of speech and communication is not. I just saw Lori's note and will respond briefly here, and at length this evening or tomorrow. By way of introduction, I served as co-chair for ICANN's Working Group on Domain Names and Famous Marks which wrapped up its work around 2000 and decided against asking for famous mark protection. (and for those who don't know me, I was co-founder of this constituency on behalf of ACM's Internet Governance Project). Part of the Working Group's reasoning is simply lack of international agreement on the issue of famous marks: there are no international treaties for the protection of famous marks and no international directory. When push comes to shove, basic principals prevail and a Spanish court found in favor of a small company marketing its products under "Nike" despite protests from a certain large sneaker company. We also found famous marks to be a very US concept. I should note that not once in a dozen years of trademark work have I ever a met a large trademark owner who did not think they had a famous mark. Whether their word is a "coined or fanciful" term (a made up word) like Xerox or Haagen Daz, or just an ordinary word like Apple or Sun, every trademark owner thinks its trademark is famous and that no one has the right to use "their word." But "their word" it is not. Trademark law is not an unlimited license to use a word or term, it is a limited right to prevent its use in the commercial context to prevent customers from going to Company A when they were really looking for Company B. Trademark law is not intended to stop people from using their words in ordinary ways -- for free speech, noncommercial use, criticism, completely different types of uses (e.g., sun for a website on sun spots). So, no, I do not think that a .SUN or a .APPLE belong to trademark owners. More to come, Kathy p.s. Here are my new coordinates: Kathryn A. Kleiman, Esq. Partner, Dozier Internet Law, P.C. 301 Concourse Blvd. West Shore III, Suite 300 Glen Allen, VA 23059 Phone: (804) 346-9770 ext. 303 Fax: (804) 346-0800 _www.cybertriallawyer.com_ (http://www.cybertriallawyer.com) <<Pardon the typos in my posting of this morning. I am my own worst proof reader. Along with my grammar errors, I noticed that I typed ISOC instead of IOC. Must have been a Freudian slip. My long winded point is that we should at least consider that there may be some trademarks that have such a high degree of global recognition that it may be in the public's interest to ensure that any gTLD's that employ those marks are controlled by the rights holder. Otherwise, the public may be misled. Consumer protection is in the public interest. Lori Schulman ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.