Kirsten wrote:
> 1. The true owners of Majordomo could challenge the activites of the =
> registrants of the domain name majordomo.com, and would most likely =
> win if they went to court, based on having used the name Majordomo in =
> the capacity they have for several years.
Is the word "majordomo" something that can be trademarked in this
way? I mean, it _is_ a real word. (Also: Have the owners actively
enforced trademark in the past, e.g., against products like Macjordomo,
Majorcool, etc?)
> 2. The InterNIC's registration dispute policy, which can be read at =
> http://rs.internic.net/domain-info/internic-domain-6.html states the =
> following:
> "The applicant (=B3Registrant=B2) is responsible for the selection of =
> its own domain name (=B3Domain Name=B2). The Registrant, by =
> completing and submitting its application, represents that the =
> statements in its application are true and that the registration of =
> the selected Domain Name, to the best of the Registrant=B9s =
> knowledge, does not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any =
> third party. The Registrant also represents that the Domain Name is =
> not being registered for any
> unlawful purpose. "
Well, they clearly didn't register it for an unlawful purpose, per
se. Does Brent Chapman own the word "majordomo", though? What
about the word "majordomo" when connected with mailing lists? I
dunno.
> I think it's clear that the registrants of majordomo.com were not =
> entirely forthcoming with their intentions, and/or did not read the =
> InterNIC's policy prior to registering that name.
The "not entirely forthcoming" accusation sounds a bit strong.
> Just my thoughts. I think it was extremely risky to register that =
> domain name, and completely unethical.
I wouldn't have done it, but I don't think it's "completely
unethical" in the way you describe it. It's probably a good
idea from a business standpoint, even.
--Kynn, settled on "mlists.com" cuz all the good names were
taken :)
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
