Geoff

Thanks for saying this.

When I first read the proposal I thought it unworkable and couldn't
understand why people were advancing it.

Warm regards
Gary

At 18:03 2/12/97 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>Mark,
>
>There is no such thing as "a trademark".
>
>There is such a thing as "a trademark qualified by a service category".
>
>Given that withinthe trademark world two completely different entities
>can quite properly and correctly trade using the same trademarked
>name, then please explain to me how BOTH parties can 'protect'
>their trademark from each other as well as from other within
>a single domain name, whether its .com.au, .tm.au or
>.garbage.au.
>
>
>Attempting to map external name structures into the DNS
>won't work. Its a waste of time even trying.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>
>
>At 23:07 1/12/97 EST, mark.hughes§ccamatil.com wrote:
>>
>>Leni,
>>
>>>Attendance was roughly 80 or so folks, mostly IP legal
>>>professionals from the informal conversations in the foyer.
>>Similar sort of attendance at Sydney.
>>
>>>The question posed by the audience was: "where does one go within
>>>the .au space to get a domain name corresponding to a trademark?"
>>
>>>At the end of the session, Ross Wilson called for a show of hands
>>>on the three whiteboard options:
>>>1.  .nn.tm.au or .tm.au
>>>2.  .pr.au
>>>3.  .com.au rules broadened to include trademark holders.
>>
>>>On 1, no-one (that I saw) raised their hand.
>>>On 2, a few people raised their hand.
>>>On 3, the vast majority of the audience raised their hand.
>>
>>>It'd be interesting to compare notes with someone that attended the
>>>Sydney session.
>>
>>I don't have the actual vote counts for the Sydney session, but my
>>impression was that they were similar.  However, I have a real
>>concern that the attendees did not understand the implication of
>>their voting.
>>
>>The bulk of the attendees, and a fair part of the discussion, was
>>from the point of view of protecting intellectual property.  My
>>impression from the conversations I had was that many of them
>>supported having trademarks in .com.au because their actual intent
>>was:
>>
>>'We want to stop someone else using our Trademark in .com.au',
>>
>>Of course, .com.au already includes trademarks where they are in use
>>as company names - but doesn't include them where they are product
>>names.
>>
>>But a better mechanism to allay fears of people using 'our' product
>>trademark in .com.au would be to modify the rules for .com.au so
>>that it excluded any trademarks on the AIPO database, unless they
>>were a company name that belonged to the applying entity.
>>
>>There are some implications to the options put to the meeting that I
>>don't think were well understood - or even poorly understood :)
>>
>>For example, there are approximately 5 times as many companies in
>>Australia as there are registered trademarks.  So if we make .com.au
>>a home for both company names and product trademarks, its very
>>likely that a lot of the holders of trademarks will NOT get the name
>>they hold the trademark for.
>>
>>And exactly the same would apply to .pr.au - there are a lot more
>>non-trademarked products than trademarked ones - so in a domain that
>>combines trademarks with other entities, trademark holders may
>>frequently miss out on a domain name that matches their existing
>>trademark.
>>
>>If there was a .tm.au, then only the 5% of trademarks where there is
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>the same trademark in multiple categories would miss out - and all
>>the others would have an exact match.
>>
>>The trademark system (and our language) is built on co-existence.
>>Kembla Coke and Coal, as well as Coca-Cola Amatil both use the word
>>Coke for the black stuff they sell (OK boys and girls, no smart
>>comments here :) ).  Both companies have a right to do so.
>>McDonalds Plumbing and McDonalds Pharmacy and McDonalds Family
>>Restaurants all have the right to use the name McDonalds.
>>
>>I believe the votes represented an attempt at a solution designed to
>>stop someone else using 'their' name, without understanding that the
>>solution might significantly reduce an entity's chance of actually
>>getting the domain name it believed it was entitled to.
>>
>>Regards, Mark
>>
>>
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>*  Message From : HUGHES, MARK          *
>>*  Location     : AUSTRALIA-CCA HDQ     *
>>*  KOMAIL ID    : N17503  (CCAMCQN1)    *
>>*  Date and Time: 12/02/97  15:03:40    *
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>
>>
>
>