[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics are Against the Rules

[Alex Gakuru]

> That is, of course, if we let it be strong and not say, say, that
co.caine is too similar to .cocaine ....

Most likely their lawyers will file "confusingly similar" co.caine
complaints, arguing that the domain names are "confusing" their *bona
fide*acquired name from ICANN. i.e. the lawyers argument would masked
to appear
as 'protecting consumers' from such confusion. Just searched 'confusingly
similar' at WIPO<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=confusingly+similar>which
returned 33443 documents. It would get worse if the registries are
allowed to register the names as their trademarks, see 'Trademark Policing
v. Trademark Bullying' at
http://theipstone.com/2012/11/13/confusingly-similar-dont-make-me-l-a-f/

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> They should try co.caine
>
> or the obvious .blow
>
> or .patente (than it'd be the flour mills that would panic)
>
> or cocaine.com, cocaine.co, cocaine.pe, cocaine.snifs, cocaine.whiffs,
> cocaine.goodforyou, .... .
>
> I am quite against colonizing/enclosing generic words and languages within
> closed legal system, and I frequently oppose IP's settling attempt into
> languages here in the dns, but I also *trust* languages/signs to evolve and
> be diverse and strong.
>
> That is, of course, if we let it be strong and not say, say, that co.caine
> is too similar to .cocaine ....
>
> So my humble suggestion, let a thousand [saussurian] signifier bloom.
>
>
> Nicolas
>
>
>
>
> On 2/25/2013 4:56 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
> And wonder if the US southerly neighbours successfully registered .cocaine
> (if they had a chance in hell) whether big pharma would be told, "where
> were you late when it was registered? Just go on and register .
> benzoylmethylecgonine ?" rules/arguments would be "adjusted"?
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2013 12:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> In which case, if I really wanted honey for some reason I would apply
>>> for .miele or .דבש or .asali
>>>
>>> or register  honey.shop or honey.coop  or honey.ri.us or honey.eat or
>>> honey.farm or honey.food or .....
>>>
>>
>>  Yes, yes, and yes. Otherwise, it's just one big free public trust of
>> strings, whose use needs to be planned and centralized, entailing endless
>> (and random) specific adjudication.
>>
>> As for generic word capture: language(s) is (are) big. Many ways to talk
>> about miel.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do  not see the point of arguing about what content someone allows in
>>> their gTLD.  And to me this largely comes down to a content issue.  We are
>>> saying that everyone has a right to put content under the TLD .honey.  And
>>> I just don't see it.
>>>
>>> I also see it as an association issue.  Why does ICANN have authority to
>>> tell a gTLD owner who they must associate with, i.e who they must allow to
>>> use the gTLD they have been allocated.
>>>
>>> As I said, I think the gulf between the two positions is quite wide.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 Feb 2013, at 18:12, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>>>
>>>  But Avri,
>>>>
>>>> Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the
>>>> exclusion of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey is
>>>> harvested at many places around the world, therefore *all* somewhere.honey
>>>> equally deserve registration with whomever rushed to grab the word. Else
>>>> would mean advocating for English to be now considered as a proprietary
>>>> language.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130226/12a688cd/attachment-0001.html>