for jac

[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

 

[Jac]

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

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]

prior rights

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

Lee

 

[Jac]

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

Lee

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]

thats right

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

I will send you a PM

Lee

 

[texidriver]

"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/RightSi...s&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum=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]

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

http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSi...s&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum=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.

... ... agreed. :twisted: :mrgreen:

 

[olebean]

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

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)