Subject: Re: [idn] what are the IDN identifiers?

From: liana Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:49:29 -0600

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:57:32 -0500 tedd <[email-masked]> writes:
> Liana:
> 
> >Unicode did give them independent codepoints as well as some
> >shared code points.   This is the reason we need an equivalent
> >set to be implemented so that there is place to check <Kanji-tree>
> >is <Han-tree>, or<Han-TC-tree> is <Han-SC-tree>  to prevent the
> >second registration, given two codepoints are not neccessarily
> >the same.
> 
> Understood, if the code points are not the same, then different 
> registrations are allowed.
> 
> >So does Armenian "nnnn" can be registered and found out later is
> >conflict with Latin "nnnn" as trademark issue, precisely due to
> >they are different codepoints in UCS.
> 
> Certainly, one person can register an  Armenian "nnnn" and someone 
> else register a Latin "nnnn" and still another can register Armenian 
> "nn" followed by a Latin "nn" and all possible combinations thereof. 
> 
> These are a concern in trademark, copyright and business issues. 
> However, this problem is something for the courts and/or WIPO to fix 
> 
> -- not the IDN. The problem is too large.
> 
> >  > Now, with all that said, I wonder if the idn wg is the place to
> >>  discus your problem? For I do not see what anyone could do short 
> of
> >>  assigning different code point for shared characters -- do you?
> >
> >Now, I am confused with your question, which problem I
> >have discussed you don't think belong to idn wg?
> 
> No offense meant, but I think that the issue you have raised, namely 
> trademark concerns, is something that is out of the scope of the IDN 
> WG. From what I gather, the IDN WG is only concerned with: 1) 
> Investigating the feasibility of using multilingual domain names; 2) 
> And, implementing the resultant procedures necessary to use 
> multilingual domain names. In other words, they are trying to get it 
> to work and are not concerned about possible trademark issues.

The investigation yields: there are feasibale solutions 
of using multilingual domain names, but not in the 
frame of western programming scheme.  They are 
in the data centric programming scheme.   Should 
the group look at it or should it be excluded from 
discussion?

The implememed resultant on the table is [nameprep],
and only covers 1463 symbols.  What about the 
the other 30,000 symbols?  If you are the chairs of
this group, can you provide that as a multilingual
domain name solution to declare the job is done 
for this group? 

> Now, I believe that is correct -- however, I may be wrong. Keep in 
> mind that I am only a lurker without the great mind that's required 
> to be on this list.

That is the way many of my colleagues think too.  They 
have disqualified themselves to be on this list, but I think
they are the silent majority on this issue.

> But, in either event, IMO the trademark problem cannot be solved 
> before hand by prohibiting such things as the Armenian "nnnn"  vs 
> the 
> Latin "nnnn" issue because it's too large a problem. Trademark 
> issues 
> WILL most certainly follow regardless of what anyone does in this 
> group because no one can predict how users and businesses will act 
> and react.
> 
> In the US, we have an anti-cybersquatting law where I can't register 
> EXXON.com because of the Trademark owned by EXXON. Likewise, I can't 
> register EXXON?com (note the new multilingual character) because of  
> the same Trademark law. The WIPO appears to be of the same focus and 
> I am sure that other countries will follow with similar legislation. 
> The Trademark problem will work it's self out in the course of time 
> on a case by case basis regardless of any preemptive actions taken 
> by  the IDN WG.
> 
> tedd

  Thank you for make the issue clearly stated.  I am posting 
your discussion for others to think about.  May be WIPO
people want to joint this discussion too. 

Liana

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:21:14 -0500 (EST)

> > EXXON.com because of the Trademark owned by EXXON. Likewise, I can't 

This is a slight over-simplification of US law.  You may be able to
register exxon.com quite legally for certain purposes, including parody,
and especially non-commercial purposes (e.g. an environmental group that
wished to complain about something Exxon was doing).

In any case, exxon, which is (1) a "coined" (made up) mark for (2) a very
very famous company is a member of a small class of names where there are
likely few legitimate registrants other than the mark-holder.  Relax
either constraint and there are usually a substantial number of potential
legal registrants.

> > the same Trademark law. The WIPO appears to be of the same focus and 

WIPO's focus is ordinarily to expand the rights that markholders have.
WIPO's agenda includes enforcing existing legal rules (and seeking to
avoid making it easy to flout existing legal rules) but is not limited to
that.

> > on a case by case basis regardless of any preemptive actions taken 

On this we agree: it is now clear that the legal system in a continually
increasing number of countries has caught on to trademark-on-the-Internet
and DNS issues and is coping with them quite well.

[back to lurking]

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

---

From: tedd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:59:05 -0500

Professor Froomkin:

>  > > EXXON.com because of the Trademark owned by EXXON.
>

Now, I am not questioning a law professor about a question of law, 
but what I said, while being simplistic, was nonetheless true. The 
following is my understanding and why I used EXXON, a "famous 
trademark" (see ACPA below), as an example. Perhaps others may 
benefit from the point clarification.

Also, as per my understanding, one cannot register the domain name of 
"exxon.com" for it is already registered. -- even for other purposes 
(i.e., non-commercial purposes, environmental, or whatever) because 
ta specific domain name can not be registered twice. Certainly, other 
domain names containing "exxon" have been registered, such as 
"exxonsucks.com" and it has even been made into a "critical of Exxon" 
web site. However, this was done before the ACPA was signed. I do not 
know how this type of "infringement" registration would shake out now.

However, I do strongly believe that if someone registered 
"exxon*.com" (where the * was the registered trademark symbol -- code 
point 00A3), they could be in trouble under the ACPA trying to sell 
it to Exxon or use it for their own purposes. Do you agree?

--- ACPA

On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the 
"Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA). This law adds 
section 43(d) to the U.S. Trademark Act of 1946 and creates a cause 
of action for "cybersquatting" on famous trademarks. The ACPA also 
creates a federal cause of action for cybersquatting on a person's 
name without his or her permission.

Under the ACPA, a person may face civil liability to the owner of a 
trademark (or a personal name) if such person:
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from a mark; and
(ii) registers, trafficks in, or uses a domain name that:
(a) is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive trademark;
(b) is identical, confusingly similar to or dilutive of a famous trademark; or
(c) infringes a specially-granted trademark such as "U.S. OLYMPICS" 
or "AMERICAN RED CROSS."

A "distinctive trademark" is any trademark that has been registered 
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or which has been used with 
goods and/or services for sufficient time that it has acquired 
"secondary meaning" among consumers.

A "famous trademark" is one that a court says is famous. There are 
numerous factors that are considered, including the duration and 
extent of use, extent of advertising, degree of public recognition, 
and whether the mark was registered with the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office. In practice, a "famous trademark" is one that most 
people have heard of, on a regular basis, for many years (i.e. Kodak, 
Microsoft, Exxon).

Now, I'm back to lurking as well.

tedd

-- 
http://sperling.com

---

From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:09:44 -0800 (PST)

all:

This realy isn't the list to discuss policy, and especially US TradeMark
law.

please take this thread to a more appropiate forum.

thanks,

-rick

---

From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 23:30:41 -0500 (EST)

Can I take it then that it's agreed that enforcing conformity to someone's
idea of what the trademark law in some places is or should be is not a
constraint that will enter into the WG's output?

I'd certainly agree with that, as I don't think an IETF standard is the
place to legislate.

---

From: "Bruce Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:18:58 +0900

written by: Michael Froomkin

> I'd certainly agree with that, as I don't think an IETF standard is the

Yes, while it's a fascinating topic, let's not go into it further here.

Bruce