4 ms·
New gTLDs are required to support both the UDRP and trademark clearing houses. These two options provide trademark holders with protections that are unavailable
by tankenmate 15y ago
New gTLDs are required to support both the UDRP and trademark clearing houses. These two options provide trademark holders with protections that are unavailable in any other sphere of the market. With clearing houses trademark holders don't need to buy domains, they can block their trademark from being registered, albeit with a one off fee.
The trademark lobbyists have managed to garner a priori chilling of speech and yet this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy.
- kelnos 15y agoWith clearing houses trademark holders don't need to buy domains, they can block their trademark from being registered, albeit with a one off fee. So pay us, or... pay us? Those are the two options?
- tankenmate 15y agoThere is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want a government backed monopoly on something you can surely bet it will have to cost you X. Whether X is a figure that is too much for you is a free market decision you will have to make. Is a few thousand a year too much for a limited government backed monopoly on a name? I would say no. I would also like to point out that I haven't discounted the social benefit of trademarks, but the registrant pays model is probably the best practical model.
- kelnos 15y agoI would definitely agree that there is a social benefit to trademarks (much more significant than that of patents or copyrights). I don't think I object to the cost in the general sense, from the registrant's perspective. But from the other side, the registries have the potential to make a decent chunk of change off this, which really feels like they're making money not for providing a useful service, but by exploiting features of trademark law. It just feels a little dirty to me.