Slashdot Mirror
Domain: marksonline.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to marksonline.com.
Comments · 7
-
WHY should Coca Cola get the domain?Why should Coca Cola be entitled to all domains which contain one of their trademarks? Take a look through the US trademark database (or use this nicer UI to search) -- almost every word you can think of is a trademark. In fact, so is every letter of the alphabet, multiple times over. So's my first name!
Trademarks were not designed to scale globally. They are made to work with geographical restrictions, and most importantly, within certain classes of goods and services. In the US, "Coke" is a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company within class 32 (Non-alcoholic maltless beverages...) and a few other classes in which they sell products. If you're not selling something in one of those classes, and you're not doing something that could confuse or dilute their trademark, there's no way you can be violating their trademark.
The important thing about domain names is that there is no way to tell what class of goods/services a site belongs to simply by looking at the name. You can't even tell if they're even selling anything! The only way that a domain name might be a trademark violation is if it's being used in a bad way. It can't be in violation on its own.
Unfortunately, a lot of large corporations don't like it this way, and it's possible we'll see the law changed so that any mention of any trademark anywhere has to be approved by the trademark holder. That's unfortunate for us as individuals (or even small businesses) -- we're literally having our language stolen from us.
--
-
WHY should Coca Cola get the domain?Why should Coca Cola be entitled to all domains which contain one of their trademarks? Take a look through the US trademark database (or use this nicer UI to search) -- almost every word you can think of is a trademark. In fact, so is every letter of the alphabet, multiple times over. So's my first name!
Trademarks were not designed to scale globally. They are made to work with geographical restrictions, and most importantly, within certain classes of goods and services. In the US, "Coke" is a trademark of the Coca-Cola Company within class 32 (Non-alcoholic maltless beverages...) and a few other classes in which they sell products. If you're not selling something in one of those classes, and you're not doing something that could confuse or dilute their trademark, there's no way you can be violating their trademark.
The important thing about domain names is that there is no way to tell what class of goods/services a site belongs to simply by looking at the name. You can't even tell if they're even selling anything! The only way that a domain name might be a trademark violation is if it's being used in a bad way. It can't be in violation on its own.
Unfortunately, a lot of large corporations don't like it this way, and it's possible we'll see the law changed so that any mention of any trademark anywhere has to be approved by the trademark holder. That's unfortunate for us as individuals (or even small businesses) -- we're literally having our language stolen from us.
--
-
trademarks"Winzip" is only a trademark within Class 9 (Computer programs, electrical and scientific apparatus). It'd be perfectly legitimate to use "Win-zip" as the name for a fast window-washing service. (Sure, it's a stretch, but perfectly legal and legitimate.) The situation is comparable with the other names you've listed.
A domain name cannot be a trademark violation by itself, since there's no way of knowing what class it's in with no context. It's only if the domain is used for a commercial purpose in a misleading or confusing way that there is a potential problem.
--
-
"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall
I notice that www.perlprogrammer.com is also 'squatted'. I don't hear Larry Wall getting the lawyers in.
"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall. "Linux" is trademarked by Linux Torvalds.
Therefore, Linus has both legal standing and a legal obligation to defend the Linux(TM) trademark. Larry does not, in the case of Perl (no (TM)).
-
"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall
I notice that www.perlprogrammer.com is also 'squatted'. I don't hear Larry Wall getting the lawyers in.
"Perl" is not trademarked by Larry Wall. "Linux" is trademarked by Linux Torvalds.
Therefore, Linus has both legal standing and a legal obligation to defend the Linux(TM) trademark. Larry does not, in the case of Perl (no (TM)).
-
Couldn't agree more; some additional thoughts
1) In general, I agree with Linus' statements.
2) It's unfortunate that protecting one's trademark inevitably forces (per current law) the trademark holder to go to great lengths (read: expense) to protect the trademark. Personally, I can't see why the owner of a registered trademark shouldn't be allowed to selectively decide who may or may not use the trademark for their own pursuits. To force the owner to treat everyone equally seems kind of odd IMHO.
3) As a small (hopefully not for long) business owner myself, I've just filed a few trademark applications and I must say, the process isn't so bad, but it's prohibitively expensive, especially the issue of trademark searches. As a free bonus, let me mention a site I found where you can do free searches of the US trademark and service mark databases - an INVALUABLE utility for those without deep pockets interested in this sort of thing: Marksonline
-
TOO LATE! (was Re:Bell Bottoms)
You think things are bad now, wait until the namers start using gratuitous self-reference... I'm just waiting for someone to try to name a company "InterCaps"...
Well, almost too late.