grandin

jac says: In this particular appeal, the appeals panel actually seems to acknowledge TM Law in para 8.3.8 when they say:

"The mere fact that a generic word happens also to be a trade mark cannot lead to the trade mark owner monopolising all uses of the word."

I say: but it does....european commission granted prior rights to generic domain names

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

Jac

Lee

Can you just clarify that for me? Are you saying that the EU commission says that a trademark owner can monopolise all uses of a given word?

PS: as I am not a lawyer (IANAL) I wouldn't be able to tell you if EU law would override UK law in these cases anyway.

Regards
James Conaghan

grandin

monopolise in that they get first refusal for the mere fact that they own a trade mark

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

Jac

Right, I understand you now.

With .uk registrations you (theoretically anyway) get FCFS but the Terms and Conditions clause 7.4 says:

"by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;"

Regards
James Conaghan

grandin

that part of the .uk is correct but not for .eu

I will send you a PM

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

texidriver

[quote=Jac]
"by registering or using the domain name in any way, you will not infringe the intellectual property rights (for example, trademarks) of anyone else;"

There is a COMMUNITY TRADE MARK that predates Procter & Gambles for "bounce".

http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSit...himnum=E211664


"3. Evidence of Abusive Registration...

B. as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the Complainant has Rights..."

I believe we should have a whip-round to allow the Applicant to file a DRS.

sneezycheese

... ... agreed.

olebean

An interesting clause:

This is is part of what I said in the discussion on DRS last week (this may not be word for word):

I asked why Nominet took a global view on rights in relation to TM when there can be co-existance of marks. I explained a little research on the word "more" I found 50 odd class applications for TM (this doesn't include MORE MORE or other combinations of words). In 22 different classes, from 19 organisations. Only 3 applications were declined, 2 of which have not previous mark registered in that class. I was asked if I felt this should be applied to just generics, I said no....... Nominet did not comment further......

Further to that, at one point and this still concerns me this was said (again this may not be word for word):

"We are only interesting in the name"

One last thing for now........... I asked if Nominet get involved with University studies into domains/industry..................

(this isnt for Jac its open to all)