4 ms·

https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names I have read the entire judgement and beside the

https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names https://www.icann.org/resources/country-territory-names I have read the entire judgement and beside the fact you can not register the name of a country, he had not also the right to register a trademark from the beginning.

kriffo 8y ago
ICANN was formed in 98. He bought the site in 94.
detaro 8y ago
The page you link talks about agreements for the New gTLDs, and as far as I know the contract for .com has not been amended to match this, so it does not apply to France.com. The trademark angle of course isn't changed by that.
djrogers 8y ago
Wait a sec, “France” is a trademark?
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  It certainly could be a trademark, just not an exclusive one like Coca-Cola. If you wanted to market a "France" brand of chairs in the US, that'd be allowed most likely, but wouldn't prevent a "France" brand of dish towels from being registered by someone else. You'd still need to avoid a false impression of origin for your chairs, but it could work if they're actually from France, you provide an alternate association for the word France in your context ("From Mr. France himself, your Kentucky neighbor since 1993!"), or just include in your branding/advertising enough clarity on where the chairs are from.
  - rrix2 8y ago
    FTA: > Defendants knew that they did not, and do not, have a right to the word "France," as evidenced by Defendant Atout France's US Trademark Registration No. 4027580, filed in 2009, in which Defendant expressly disclaimed the exclusive right to the word "France."
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      Yup, agreed. Exclusive being the key word there. They were using the word France as a reference to the country, and couldn't prevent others from doing so. That's different from using the word to reference something else like chairs.
    - YawningAngel 8y ago
      That text only refers to an exclusive right
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Coca Cola probably doesn't have a trademark for chairs, so this is a bit of an odd example. If you tried to trademark Coca Cola chairs, Coca Cola would sue you based on confusion, not because they already have a trademark in the category of household furniture.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      Right - their trademark effectively means "from The Coca-Cola Company" as it's intrinsic meaning. As you say, anything called Coca-Cola would create confusion if not actually from them, since people would assume it was theirs. So they effectively have exclusive rights to such trademarks. Whereas for a country name like France, people assume much less about the purveyor of a good simply based on that kind of a reference in its name.
- realusername 8y ago
  It's obviously not a trademark since the name is older than trademarks themselves.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kriffo 8y ago

ICANN was formed in 98. He bought the site in 94.

detaro 8y ago

The page you link talks about agreements for the New gTLDs, and as far as I know the contract for .com has not been amended to match this, so it does not apply to France.com. The trademark angle of course isn't changed by that.

djrogers 8y ago

Wait a sec, “France” is a trademark?

jkaplowitz 8y ago
It certainly could be a trademark, just not an exclusive one like Coca-Cola. If you wanted to market a "France" brand of chairs in the US, that'd be allowed most likely, but wouldn't prevent a "France" brand of dish towels from being registered by someone else. You'd still need to avoid a false impression of origin for your chairs, but it could work if they're actually from France, you provide an alternate association for the word France in your context ("From Mr. France himself, your Kentucky neighbor since 1993!"), or just include in your branding/advertising enough clarity on where the chairs are from.
- rrix2 8y ago
  FTA: > Defendants knew that they did not, and do not, have a right to the word "France," as evidenced by Defendant Atout France's US Trademark Registration No. 4027580, filed in 2009, in which Defendant expressly disclaimed the exclusive right to the word "France."
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    Yup, agreed. Exclusive being the key word there. They were using the word France as a reference to the country, and couldn't prevent others from doing so. That's different from using the word to reference something else like chairs.
  - YawningAngel 8y ago
    That text only refers to an exclusive right
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Coca Cola probably doesn't have a trademark for chairs, so this is a bit of an odd example. If you tried to trademark Coca Cola chairs, Coca Cola would sue you based on confusion, not because they already have a trademark in the category of household furniture.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    Right - their trademark effectively means "from The Coca-Cola Company" as it's intrinsic meaning. As you say, anything called Coca-Cola would create confusion if not actually from them, since people would assume it was theirs. So they effectively have exclusive rights to such trademarks. Whereas for a country name like France, people assume much less about the purveyor of a good simply based on that kind of a reference in its name.
realusername 8y ago
It's obviously not a trademark since the name is older than trademarks themselves.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]