Hello Edward, Thank you for the clarification, but I did not mean that domain names and trademarks are the same thing. What I wanted to say was that a domain name can be registered as a trademark, like Amazon.com and probably others that did the same thing. But while we know that a domain name is not the same thing as a trademark, in a court of law, depending on the judge's expertise and knowledge, the two might be considered the same thing; according to me, that is the biggest concern. Once again, thank you for the clarification Edward. Regards, *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 11:54 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask] > wrote: > Hello Andreas. > > With all due respect you are wrong in your apparent assertion that domain > names and trademarks are the same thing.. > > That domain names are not trademarks does not imply that domain names can > not be the same word as trademarks. If we were to take your representation > that domain names are trademarks would you kindly explain to me how the > principles of territoriality and product classification, integral to all > known trademark schemes in the developed world, are applied online? They > are not. > > There are domain names that are not trademarks. There are trademarks that > are not domain names. They are not the same thing. > > That ICANN was created and developed in a manner that many of us believe > elevates brand owner interests above all others does not change this > essential fact. Some brand owners have come to recognise this in claiming a > 'domain name navigation right' relating to domain names. Of course they > continue to claim a trademark based interest in said domain names. They > never seem to be satisfied. > > In the context of Michele Neylon's letter it is claimed that ICANN by > granting so called 'closed garden' gTLD's is usurping trademark authority > vested in the nation state. This simply is not true. If one objects to a > domain name, gTLD or otherwise, being granted in contradiction to national > law, trademark or otherwise, one always has recourse to the wonderful court > systems of said nation states. In fact, there are a few of us out there who > would like to return to the 'good old days' of domain names being assigned > on a first come first served basis and thus forcing mark holders to go to > court if they feel their rights have been violated.,,and getting our > beloved California public benefits corporation out of the business of > tangentially determining aspects of international intellectual monopoly > policy. > > That ship may have sailed. However the attempt to elevate domain names > into trademarks must be resisted. Domain names are identifiers, no more and > no less, and may be subject to regulation under national trademark laws as > are any other identifier. That intellectual property interests have so > institutionalised themselves into the ICANN process, with little internal > blowback from anyone other than this Constituency, is sad. It does not, > however, change the nature of a domain name, a trademark, intellectual > monopolies, ICANN or the role of the nation state. > > Domain names are not trademarks. ICANN is free to determine the policy it > wishes to follow in assigning domain name licenses in any manner it wishes. > There are, of course, practical considerations and the multistakeholder > model itself in play but those considerations go beyomd the confines of > this discussion. > > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Andrei Barburas <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >