Brett Caird wrote:
> 
> At 10:36 4/12/96 +1000, you wrote:
> >How does this cover the action along the hypothetical lines of:
> >
> >"You are using my name acme in your use of acme.com.au. I have
> > been damaged. The registry is a party to this action. I wish to you sue
> > you and the registry for damage you have done to my company."
> >
> >Interplead all you like - its not the right to use the name thats the massive
> >issue - its the damages arising from misuse of someone else's
> >name which cause the largest gleam in the lawyers' sights.
> 
> As I understand it, the ASC would not stop me creating a company with a name
> that is very similar to an existing company.
> 
> If the existing company could prove that I was infringing on its goodwill, I
> would be in trouble... to my knowledge the ASC would not normally be implicated.
> 
> If the registry is operating within its guidelines and the person
> registering acme.com.au has a claim to that name under those guidelines I
> would argue that the registry was doing its job.  The party requesting the
> domain should take the fall as it is they who stand to gain from infringing
> on another's goodwill.
> 
> If I walked up to a signwriter and asked him to paint me a sign that says
> "ACME..." would he be drawn into the drama?  I requested the sign, he is
> just doing his job.
> 
> Obviously the signwriter is a little different as he is not an "Authority".
> 
> My point is the ASC isn't roasted for allowing a company to be created that
> would infinge on another's goodwill, nor should a DNSA be roasted for
> allowing a domain name that would infringe on some company's goodwill.
> 
> The problem with more than one company potentially being entitled to the
> same domain name could only be solved (as far as I can see) by removing the
> practice of allowing abbreviations and acronyms and insisting on domains
> being exactly the same as the organizations real name (same as other
> authorities) with a com.au tacked on the end.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Brett
> 
> ----
> Brett Caird             Chief Executive/Director
> brettc§bit.net.au       http://www.bit.net.au/
> Brisbane Internet Technology Pty Ltd
Brett

I agree with your comments about ASC and company names but not your
solution. Where I work we have numerous examples that what is
registered  is similar to other names and the issues at law concern
passing off, goodwill and so on. The checks during registration do not
prevent names coming into existance which are similar nor do they
preclude any individual with a grievance taking it up as a civil action.
Your solution of making companies register with the registered name
isn't as simple as it sounds. Many companies have registered several
variets of their name eg xyz holdings (parent), xyz finance (investing),
abc [holding some assets which can't be transferred and then abc will be
liquidated]. The whole thing is a can of worms. 

I'd like to see the Geoff Huston/Luke Carruthers letter go forward
explicitly drawing an analogy with government depts which issue licences
and permits. No-one sues the Road Transport Authority for a text number
plate which is the same as a company name (eg BHP 001) and no-one claims
that because a developer names residential building as say gateway that
that developer has authorised its use; so the dns should just regarded
as an address. If this were the case it takes the question back to how
subsequent disagreements ought to be resolved and frankly in todays
litiguous society, despite what ever we want, provided a party has the
money it will end up in court.

Warm regards
Gary