<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I would take exception to the claim that allowing so called "closed garden" gTLD's at all infringes upon nation states "entrenched legal processes" for obtaining trademark protection. <div>
<br></div><div>It's usually brand owners I need to remind of what appears to be a little recognized fact: domain names are not trademarks. Notwithstanding the fact that brand owners want us to treat domain names as trademarks +, that some UDRP mediators seem to buy this argument, that we're left fighting attempts to establish extraordinary protection for famous marks...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Domain names are not trademarks. Nor are they sui generis i.p. marks. To sign this letter indicates a belief that in some form they are and will make it a be a bit more difficult in the futre to coherently fight efforts by brand owners to further expand their monopoly rights in the domain ecosphere.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The concept of a commons in generic terms may be admirable. The concept stands alone and needs not and should not be linked to trademark rights. Regrettably the time to make such an argument with regards to this round of gTlds is in the past.</div>
<div><br></div></span><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by Michele
Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar
in Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed gardens" --
generic words that some companies have applied for as new gTLDs and
will keep "closed" -- not open for general second-level domain name
registration. These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD,
among many others.<br>
<br>
It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of expression
arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, registrars and
registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories. <br>
<br>
Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know if
you can sign on (name, organization). Michele is cc'ed on this
email, and can be reached at <a href="mailto:michele@blacknight.ie" target="_blank">michele@blacknight.ie</a> <br>
<br>
----- <br>
Here's the full version with current signatories : <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit</a><u></u>Here
are two quotes from the <br>
<u></u>
<p><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Here are two quotes from
the letter: <span style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"></span><span style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"><br>
"Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the
opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to
allow for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very
defined circumstances. </span><br>
<span style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal">Specifically, that closed
gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings in which the
applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized)
intellectual property rights, basically brand names. We
believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is inherently
logical especially in view of the discussions that preceded
the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large part, on
expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting
innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide."</span><br>
<span style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal"></span><br>
<span style="vertical-align:baseline;font-variant:normal;font-style:normal;font-size:15px;background-color:transparent;text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal">"Further, generic words used
in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the
public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the
whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD.
Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain
names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we
envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to
allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off
common words for which they do not possess intellectual
property rights in effect allows them to circumvent
nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining
legitimate and recognized trademark protections."</span><br>
</font>----<br>
Best, <br>
Kathy <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>Kathy Kleiman<br>
Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth<br>
Co-Founder, NCUC<br>
</p>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>