> Actually Apple is a bad example, because Apple can not be protected as a
> word in itself because it's used in everyday dealings and is in the
> English
> dictionary, so no one has rights to the word Apple :)

I did not add to the end of that sentence. "In certain classes"





> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org [mailto:dns-
> bounces+charlie=mccormack.net.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of Charlie McCormack
> Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2006 9:54 AM
> To: 'Kim Davies'
> Cc: '.au DNS Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> There are only about 2-4 classes (from memory) that will protect a word or
> series or words from online use.
> 
> Go and try register Microsoft in ANY namespace and see what happens, no
> they
> don't have them all.
> 
> Anyone remember Microsoft trying to protect the numbers 1 and 0? It didn't
> happen, for obvious reasons, but imagine if they got it?
> 
> As the internet does not have specific law written for it, it must follow
> our current laws.
> 
> Does auDA have the right to issue a license to use a domain name
> (protectedc
> trademark) when that domain name is protected by IP laws because the word
> has been registered as a trademark in all relevant classes.
> 
> I think the wording needs to be changed from license to management fee or
> maintenance fee or something else, because as it stands, it could be
> argued
> that auDA is issuing a license to a protected mark.
> 
> Remember law works on definition, and license is the wrong word to use.
> 
> Actually Apple is a bad example, because Apple can not be protected as a
> word in itself because it's used in everyday dealings and is in the
> English
> dictionary, so no one has rights to the word Apple :)
> 
> That example you show only shows you are not seeing the point of IP law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 July 2006 12:57 AM
> > To: Charlie McCormack
> > Cc: 'Kim Davies'; '.au DNS Discussion List'
> > Subject: Re: [DNS] Secondary Market
> >
> > Quoting Charlie McCormack on Wednesday July 19, 2006:
> > | You are referring to a product or process, not a word or series of
> words
> > as
> > | a mark, there is a big difference.
> >
> > I thought you would patent a product or a process? What is wrong with
> > what I said with respect to trademarks?
> >
> > Can you give an example of other cases where having a trademark
> > unilaterally usurps other restrictions, rules, regulations or business
> > processes that may otherwise apply?
> >
> > I just don't see the connection. Trademarking a name isn't an automatic
> > or exclusive right to everything and anything with that name it. Nor
> > does it prevent a business from otherwise conducting business that is
> > otherwise permissible just because it involves the same letters.
> >
> > Why can't a domain like apple.foo be licensed Apple Records, or the
> > Apple Growers Association, or Gwyneth Paltrow's kid Apple, or Mrs Apple
> > - just because Apple Computers has a trademark on it in relation to
> > computers?
> >
> > kim
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/