ICANN is wrong
scripting.com
ICANN is wrong
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: ICANN is wrong
#2If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done.
Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict.
And of course, trademarks are not fully international.
Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.
Re: ICANN is wrong
#3Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names.
For example, he writes:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
But the same reasoning applies for domain names:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and apple.com could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
Re: ICANN is wrong
#4Of course ICANN is wrong. There just in it for the money. Their TLD-creation is like a money press, why stop?
Re: ICANN is wrong
#5My original thought when hearing about the prospect of new gTLDs was that a central body would look to claim a descriptive term such as 'blog' and make it available to anyone who wanted to host a blog under set criteria, and provided that centralised body committed to providing access to anyone under reasonable terms. This would act as a guarantee of origin of the site and would be helpful to consumers.
I don't therefore see an issue with the registration of new descriptive gTLDs but only if access is provided in line with the above. The issue with Amazon/Google's land grab is that we cannot guarantee the basis on which access will be made available which could in turn lead to segregation, particularly if google were to control a gTLD and also provide greater prominence to it in search results.
At the present moment in time, it is the lack of certainty in the process which is troubling. Of course, if I read ICANN's handbook more fully things might become much clearer.
Re: ICANN is wrong
#6If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done. Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict. And of course, trademarks are not fully international. Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.
You are right to extent, however, even in the absence of a lack of confusion, an action can be brought where a third party in using a similar/identical mark to the original takes unfair advantage or causes detriment to the original mark.
In fact, Apple Inc and Apple Records engaged in a long-standing legal spat over the usage of the Apple mark before finally reaching a settlement in 2007.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Re: ICANN is wrong
#7If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done. Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict. And of course, trademarks are not fully international. Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.
While all of your points are correct, I think you missed the point.
That line of argument is expressly what the author was trying to avoid. The author acknowledged there were issues with it but stepped beyond them because there's a larger point that he was trying to make. (One I think has its own issues, but that's for another post.)
Re: ICANN is wrong
#8Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names. For example, he writes: "Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit." But the same reasoning applies for domain names: "Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in Sou…
The Amazon rainforest is not a commercial entity. Associating the rainforest with .com makes no sense.
Re: ICANN is wrong
#9Previous discussion from this author/blog on this topic:
Re: ICANN is wrong
#10Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names. For example, he writes: "Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit." But the same reasoning applies for domain names: "Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in Sou…
No, because there are hundreds of other places one can register 'amazon' as a second-level domain.