At 10:36 4/12/96 +1000, you wrote:
>How does this cover the action along the hypothetical lines of:
>
>"You are using my name acme in your use of acme.com.au. I have
> been damaged. The registry is a party to this action. I wish to you sue
> you and the registry for damage you have done to my company."
>
>Interplead all you like - its not the right to use the name thats the massive
>issue - its the damages arising from misuse of someone else's
>name which cause the largest gleam in the lawyers' sights.

As I understand it, the ASC would not stop me creating a company with a name
that is very similar to an existing company.

If the existing company could prove that I was infringing on its goodwill, I
would be in trouble... to my knowledge the ASC would not normally be implicated.

If the registry is operating within its guidelines and the person
registering acme.com.au has a claim to that name under those guidelines I
would argue that the registry was doing its job.  The party requesting the
domain should take the fall as it is they who stand to gain from infringing
on another's goodwill.

If I walked up to a signwriter and asked him to paint me a sign that says
"ACME..." would he be drawn into the drama?  I requested the sign, he is
just doing his job.

Obviously the signwriter is a little different as he is not an "Authority".

My point is the ASC isn't roasted for allowing a company to be created that
would infinge on another's goodwill, nor should a DNSA be roasted for
allowing a domain name that would infringe on some company's goodwill.

The problem with more than one company potentially being entitled to the
same domain name could only be solved (as far as I can see) by removing the
practice of allowing abbreviations and acronyms and insisting on domains
being exactly the same as the organizations real name (same as other
authorities) with a com.au tacked on the end.

Cheers

Brett

----
Brett Caird		Chief Executive/Director
brettc§bit.net.au	http://www.bit.net.au/
Brisbane Internet Technology Pty Ltd