on 20/12/01 2:02 PM, Chris Disspain at ceo§auda.org.au wrote:

> Craig,
> 
> Business A would be able to apply under the 'substantial and close
> connection' criterion.

See original enquiry below.




This is an interesting point.

As a web development company I take it under the 'substantial and close
connection' criterion I would be eligible to apply for the following generic
domain names.

developer.com.au
design.com.au
designers.com.au
internets.com.au
web.com.au
web-sites.com.au

etc, etc, etc.

Is this the case? If so, does it not mean that the several thousand web
design/multi-media companies can apply for these domains. It seems like the
big boys who have the money will once again benefit.

Katie Halson
Blue Door Multimedia
http://www.bluedoor.com.au






> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Smith [mailto:Craig_Smith§freehills.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 14:29
> To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] auction question
> 
> 
> I find the constant preoccupation with "cybersquatters" surprising, given
> that it is frequently at the expense of genuine business users of the
> Australian domain name system (.com.au). Given that the auDRP is likely to
> be introduced at some stage in the immediate future, why not leave that
> system to take care of businesses registering a domain name with no
> connection to their own business and subsequently seeking to sell it?
> 
> Take a not so fanciful example. "accupuncture.com.au" appears on the first
> page of generic domain names to be released. Business A offers accupuncture
> services and promotes itself on the web using its trade mark "holey relief"
> (also registered as its company name), and has registered holey.com.au to
> promote its services. Business B has registered "Bob's Accupuncture" as a
> business name (before 13 August 2001) and promotes its accupuncture
> services at bobsaccupuncture.com.au. Both businesses think that a more
> memorable domain name would be accupuncture.com.au, and they also think
> that more people may guess that domain name and hence locate their
> services.
> 
> The auction system only allows Business B to seek to obtain that
> registration, even if Business A values it more highly and would be
> prepared to pay more for it. How is it that this is fair and equitable?
> What if Business B registered its business name in order to secure
> accupuncture.com.au because of its ignorance of the prohibition on generic
> domain names, but Business A did not because it "knew" that there was a
> (permanent) prohibition on such registrations?
> 
> Our trade mark system is reluctant to grant monopolies for generic words,
> the rationale being that competitors should have an equal right to use that
> descriptive name (depending on whether the generic word would be
> descriptive of the particular goods/services the subject of the trade mark
> application). If generic domain names are to be made available, then it is
> difficult to decide who has the greatest right to it - therefore why not
> simply make them available to the business that values it highest. Just
> because one business adopts a descriptive (read generic) name as part of
> its business name shouldn't give that business an advantage over a
> competitor who, sensibly, registers a more distinctive name, but has just
> as much of an interest in securing the generic word as a domain name.
> 
> I cannot understand the rationale for restricting availability to those who
> "qualified" as at 13 August 2001. If it is true that it is to somehow
> ensure that auDA board members receive no unfair advantage, then how is it
> that they could? They would still have to bid more than anyone else was
> prepared to in order to secure the generic domain name of their choice.
> 
> Finally, allowing businesses to now register an appropriate name (that
> relates to their business) in order to participate in the upcoming auction
> would minimise the prospects of "cybersquatting" since there should be
> no-one else who values the domain name more highly to sell it to.
> 
> Craig Smith
> 
> All views are my own.
> 
>