Trademarks and Domain Names Stupidity
Sep. 15th, 2006 11:37 amThe newly authorised international pseudo-country-code top-level domain of .eu was approved last year. As with the new gTLDs (.biz, .info, .museum, .aero) the registrars included a "sunrise period" during which only trademark owners can register their mark as a domain (supposedly anyway - some registrars have also been extending this to other issues such as "right of personality" for individual names and similar). One of the first arbitration cases (see Michael Geist on domain name arbitration) was launched recently. This one, I believe, shows the utterly ridiculous nature of the whole trademarks in domain names and sunrise periods issue. There is a company which has a trademark in an EU country (czech at least and maybe others) on the word "sex". So much for trademarks not being allowed on generic words. Another company trademarked sex.eu (and also casino.eu) and launched dispute resolution proceedings when they weren't the trademark owners who were awarded sex.eu.
OutLaw story.
Trademarks were developed to prevent unfair business practices, such as building a shoddy car called a Rolls-Royce and then trading on the goodwill of the original brand to sell inferior goods or to penetrate a market. The justification for trademarks is as much about consumer protection (knowing what you're buying without having to go digging through company records) as it is about rewarding the good business of the existing company. ALlowing trademarking of words such as sex, and then allowing sunrise registration of such trademarks in new domain names, brings the law into serious disrepute. It used to be that you had to have actually been trading under a recognisable name before you could get a trademark, and it used to only be valid within a very specific domain, unless you became a sufficiently well-known mark (such as Rolls-Royce again) such that customers would need protection within all domains.
It's time we stopped regarding trademarks as "intellectual property" and started regarding them as consumer protection.
OutLaw story.
Trademarks were developed to prevent unfair business practices, such as building a shoddy car called a Rolls-Royce and then trading on the goodwill of the original brand to sell inferior goods or to penetrate a market. The justification for trademarks is as much about consumer protection (knowing what you're buying without having to go digging through company records) as it is about rewarding the good business of the existing company. ALlowing trademarking of words such as sex, and then allowing sunrise registration of such trademarks in new domain names, brings the law into serious disrepute. It used to be that you had to have actually been trading under a recognisable name before you could get a trademark, and it used to only be valid within a very specific domain, unless you became a sufficiently well-known mark (such as Rolls-Royce again) such that customers would need protection within all domains.
It's time we stopped regarding trademarks as "intellectual property" and started regarding them as consumer protection.
