Hello all, Edward, allow me to contradict you regarding this statement: "*Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis i.p. marks. To sign this letter indicates a belief that in some form they are and will make it a be a bit more difficult in the futre to coherently fight efforts by brand owners to further expand their monopoly rights in the domain ecosphere.*" The best example I can give, is Amazon.com which is an actual trademark (Amazon with and without the dotcom; a list of their trademarks can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=200738910) This issue was discussed in one of our previous mailings regarding "generic" words, like fruits and everyday items. *Andrei Barburas* Community Relations Services Officer International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands Mobile: +31 62 928 2879 Phone: +31 70 311 7311 Fax: +31 70 311 7322 Website: www.iicd.org *People ** **ICT Development* On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > I would take exception to the claim that allowing so called "closed > garden" gTLD's at all infringes upon nation states "entrenched legal > processes" for obtaining trademark protection. > > It's usually brand owners I need to remind of what appears to be a little > recognized fact: domain names are not trademarks. Notwithstanding the fact > that brand owners want us to treat domain names as trademarks +, that some > UDRP mediators seem to buy this argument, that we're left fighting attempts > to establish extraordinary protection for famous marks... > > Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis i.p. marks. To > sign this letter indicates a belief that in some form they are and will > make it a be a bit more difficult in the futre to coherently fight efforts > by brand owners to further expand their monopoly rights in the domain > ecosphere. > > The concept of a commons in generic terms may be admirable. The concept > stands alone and needs not and should not be linked to trademark rights. > Regrettably the time to make such an argument with regards to this round of > gTlds is in the past. > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Hi All, >> I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by Michele >> Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar in >> Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed gardens" -- generic >> words that some companies have applied for as new gTLDs and will keep >> "closed" -- not open for general second-level domain name registration. >> These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others. >> >> It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of expression >> arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, registrars and registrants -- >> and Michele is looking for Signatories. >> >> Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know if you >> can sign on (name, organization). Michele is cc'ed on this email, and can >> be reached at [log in to unmask] >> >> ----- >> Here's the full version with current signatories : >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit >> **Here are two quotes from the >> ** >> >> >> Here are two quotes from the letter: >> "Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the opinion that >> the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow for the operation of >> closed gTLDs only under very defined circumstances. >> Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings >> in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized) >> intellectual property rights, basically brand names. We believe that this >> interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical especially in view of the >> discussions that preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very >> large part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting >> innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide." >> >> "Further, generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It >> is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs >> to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. >> Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these >> powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program >> would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate >> and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual >> property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ >> entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized >> trademark protections." >> ---- >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> Kathy Kleiman >> Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth >> Co-Founder, NCUC >> > >