Amateur With Call-Sign Deflects Domain Challenge

ivi writes "Check out the story at the American Radio Relay League's web site." I thought this was interesting because it seems likely that QVC was sending out "bulk" threat letters to anyone with "QVC" in their domain name. This practice has become common, and there are even companies that specialize in providing this, uh, service. The domain owner handled it well, and QVC backed off - but there still seems to be something slimy about the act of sending out threats in that manner in the first place.

Comments

Re:Authorities know the answer - .REG

[The Mayor]

You do realize that two companies in completely unrelated industries can share the same trademark, don't you? Look at the word trademark. A mark for a trade. For a specific trade. Trademarks only apply to the trade within which the business does work. Of course, if your business is sufficiently common, such as McDonalds (tm), the trademark can be successfully defended outside the trade. However, this is a fairly rare occurance in IP law. As an example, the word, "Nova", is trademarked by both General Motors (their car, the "no go", as it is translated from Spanish) and PBS (the science-oriented television show). Both were awarded trademarks because they are in completely different trades, and as such the trademarks would not be confused with one another.

As a result, how should the ICANN deal with two companies that wish to register the same domain name? They might both own the trademark to that name, but in different industries? Your suggestion for a .REG TLD simply won't work. ICANN holds the position that top level domains != trademarks. Now, WIPO is in the business of defending IP. So, if there is some ambiguity, they will try to help enforce the rights of the IP holder. But your argument simply doesn't hold water.

And, for the record, free speech laws in America do not include the right to slander a company or to dilute the efficacy of a trademark. This is fairly well established (i.e. I don't think the courts will be overturning precedent any time soon). An exception to this exception is in the case of satire (one of the strongest forms of free speech in America, I might add). This is because satire cannot be confused with serious dialogue; as such, satire does not constitute slander.

Cheers!

Now, as I understood it, WIPO does not have a policy of forcing the foreiture of domain names to trademark owners. They will do this, but it is not their policy.

well

[fluxrad]

the link seems to be slashdotted. luckily some guy in norway is broadcasting it via his 2 meter rig. thank god for dashdot


FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network