At 9:25 +1000 18/10/00, Bill Ladas wrote:

>While it's clear that under the UDRP someone with 'trade mark rights' in
>a place name may be able to get a transfer of the domain name if it was
>registered and used in bad faith (see for example the WIPO
>"stmoritz.com" decision), it's not clear whether smaller place names
>will be able to prove such rights and succeed under the .com.au dispute
>resolution policy.  The restriction in the .com.au name space is in
>keeping with the restrictions against registering geographical names in
>the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (even though it will depend on the facts
>whether a domain name is acting as a trade mark).  Perhaps something
>similar to section 41 of the Act should be employed, so that even a
>geographical name with no inherent adaptability to distinguish, may be
>registered as a .com.au if it satisfies section 41(6) - that is, it is
>factually distinctive of the proprietor's goods or services.  If domain
>names are going to be treated as business identifiers, perhaps we need
>more of an accord with our trade marks legislation.
>
>What does everyone else think?

I think that's one of the best suggestions that's been
posted to this list since Geoff Huston stopped posting
his "the DNS is not a directory" mantra.

Still needs more work (the devil is in the detail), but
it appears to me to have potential.

  ...R.