| ▲ | xp84 5 days ago |
| This requiring it to be open to everybody is an odd wish, to me. It would seem to discourage something that I don't think is a harm to anyone else: Getting your brand as a TLD (.google being a great example). Google has a trademark on "Google," so no one else can make non-mischeivous use of .google anyway. If they had to let random internet critics and trolls register theworst.google and ihate.google they just wouldn't make one, but that wouldn't make anyone else any better off, especially in the real world we live in where most people still do a double take at TLDs that aren't com, org, edu, or gov (or their nearest country code). Maybe if we'd always had .yahoo and .aol from the beginning these brand TLDs would be a big signifier of legitimacy and thus we'd be worried about how only big corporations can afford them, but not being able to afford one in our current universe is no handicap in my humble opinion. |
|
| ▲ | thayne 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Well it's tricky. I don't really have a problem with google owning the .google TLD, because that is a pretty unique name, and is unlikely to be useful for anything besides unrelated to Google. Similarly for .walmart or .microsoft. But .apple is a problem, because it is a common English word, and it isn't unreasonable for say an apple orchard, or an apple cider company to want a .apple domain. Similarly for other brand names like target, zoom, uber, plaid, etc. Even .amazon fits here since it is also the name of a river, a rain forest, and mythological group of women. But where do you draw the line? How do you decide if a company should be allowed to get a gTLD for their brand? Clearly, having a trademark is not sufficient, as it is possible to get a trademark on a common word, and it is possible for multiple companies to trademark the same word as long as there isn't a risk of confusing them. Is it fair to let google and microsoft get such TLDs for their brands, but not apple and amazon? |
| |
| ▲ | Towaway69 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Is it tricky? If you have a trademark, you can have a gTLD - simple as that. Because the problem is how can apple have a trademark on the word “apple”? For me, the same rules should be enforced for trademarks because an apple orchard might also like to have a trademark but that’s difficult because “apple” is already a trademark. Edit: as pointed out in the comments, this position doesn't take into account that trademarks are very much national and cultural. Perhaps one day gTLDs will become free (once the gold rush is over) just as SSL/TLS certificates did with the arrival of Lets Encrypt. | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Trademarks are not globally unique (even within a single country!). A good example of this is the long running legal dispute between Apple Computer and Apple Music, who each held a trademark on "Apple" in their respective domains, and which prevented the Beatles from playing on iTunes for a decade... | |
| ▲ | dcvfsss 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You seem to be missing that trademarks are generally context specific E.g. Apple has a trademark in the context of technology but not in the context of farming Whereas gTLDs are flat namespace | | |
| ▲ | Towaway69 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Ok, good point. I assumed global trademarks but yes trademarks are nation based. Should then only multi-national organisations be allowed to obtain gTLDs? Obviously the ICANN price tag of USD227k is also a good entry barrier. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The problem isn’t that trademarks are country-based but that trademarks are business area based. You can have multiple trademarks for the same word for different companies if the companies do different things. Apple doesn’t have the right to prevent you from using the word „apple“ to sell lawn mowers. |
|
| |
| ▲ | toolslive 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | there was a fight between Apple, the computer company and Apple, the record company (initially owned by The Beatles).
They initially resolved it by The Beatles allowing the other to one to keep its name on the condition they would refrain from entering the music business. We all know how that turned out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records | | |
| ▲ | portaouflop 5 days ago | parent [-] | | How did it turn out? Seems like both still have their trademark and everyone lived happily ever after | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | whycome 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But why do they need to do that as a TLD? They have google.com and other iterations. |
