Re: [DNS] What's in a name? Too little, says panel

Re: [DNS] What's in a name? Too little, says panel

From: Patrick Corliss <patrick§quad.net.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:34:18 +1100
Hi Warwick

Based on the Sudney Morning Herald report:

> > Most significantly, the report proposes anyone applying for a domain name
> > should first hold an associated trademark.

Doug Robb is quite right to think there were several problems:

    (1)    cost of the trademark registration
    (2)    long delay in processing, and
    (3)    non-acceptance by the trademark office

Doug Robb wrote:
>  But you can't trademark generic words so suggestion
>  above and this one are mutually exclusive are they?

Warwick A Rothnie replied:
> but, as lots of people have done, you can register a company or business
> name for generic terms.

That wasn't the implication of the newspaper report.  It was suggesting that,
under the new rules, you HAD to have a trademark.  So a company or business
name was no good.

But I believe the whole thing's a furphy in the first place.  We need to
comment on the report itself and not a newspaper journalist's mistaken
interpretation of it.

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Received on Mon Nov 20 2000 - 12:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Dec 17 2014 - 16:00:12 UTC