.

signup292
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

.

Post by signup292 » Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:56 am

.
Last edited by signup292 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Preventing trademark infringement

Post by virtual_master » Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:00 am

signup292 wrote:I know legality, trademarks, and other stuff has already been mentioned. This suggestion would not be attacking the value of the decentralization of .bit, but rather making it more legitimate. Why not have a registry of trademarks that must be confirmed, in order to resolve a particular .bit? The last thing that will allow .bit to become mainstream is permitting audi.bit to actually go somewhere other than the company.

People that have squatted trademarked .bit's (often times in protection of .bit) could STILL sell them at a reasonable price to the company.

I would be willing to take responsibility for this feature if it could somehow get into the next release. Not the code integration, but the methodology, accounting, process, whatever it takes. I think it would be good news for people to hear "Namecoin to prevent trademark infringement with its .bit domains."
I am sure that you also know that something like this is absolutely impossible.
Not even in a centralized way, and a decentralized solution like this even less. ICANN domain registrations also doesn't solve this problem. Some people are thinking by trademarks on well known names where the owner seems to be clear but even there it is very fluid.
They are different countries over the world with different laws and different registries. Which law and registry should apply ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscollen/ ... ying-news/
Even by the best known trademarks it would be difficult to make an objective decision, not to speak about the 99.9% of the registered and unknown trademarks.
Whoever would have the power to take this decisions would have a good source of income.

And if anyway the money decides who owns the trademark then we should have at least an objective way of decision for the interest of the Namecoin network.
I already proposed such a fee system where names should be owned by the highest economic interest, who pays the greatest fee for it.
By the registration of a name entry should be a bidding period where the highest bidder for a name should get it. The fee would go to the Namecoin network, different models are possible. I would prefer a coin binding instead of destruction. The coins of the highest bidder should be blocked with a time send to self for the registration period and released when the period is over. This would be an automatic process implemented so there would be no corruption possibility. There would be no need for lawyers or state executives. The market would be self-regulating. Who is bidding the highest amount of coins and investing with it in the network would get it. In the real world is also not very different because who invests the most money in lawyers will get it.
http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

John Kenney
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:20 pm
os: linux
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: Preventing trademark infringement

Post by John Kenney » Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:16 pm

It was resolved for ICANN domains many years ago, WIPO have rules & a dispute procedure to allow trademark owners to take over infringing domain names without needing to take court action. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/

signup292
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

.

Post by signup292 » Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:16 pm

.
Last edited by signup292 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

mightbemike
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:40 am

Re: Preventing trademark infringement

Post by mightbemike » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:24 am

It's such an important theme for many mainstream users, protecting trademark holders' rights.

The practicality of doing this is exactly as @virtual_master suggests though. ICANN's way does not work well at all, and without a central authority how can it possibly?

WIPO decisions are arbitrary and highly unpredictable, because they are NOT based on precedent like national judicial systems. That's probably because, as he also points out, which set of standards would be chosen to be the de facto rules - US trademark law?

And even if you solved that, it would not be enough. In the US if 2 companies both trademark the term "American Air" - one an airline and one makes air conditioners, they each have rights over the use of that term in specific contexts only. So which one should have the right to "americanair.bit"? US law does not indicate that one of those should have a stronger claim to "americanair.com" than the other. And unfortunately there are many holders of service marks with "americanair".

Not really agreeing with giving preference to the monied interests either though. I think the only thing that's clear is that this is a hard problem because it's political in nature, not technical.
NMC: NFhmGAqzRpZbGs3uCPPo7DJKuscuL4Aap2
id/mightbemike

signup292
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

.

Post by signup292 » Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:01 am

.
Last edited by signup292 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

biolizard89
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Preventing trademark infringement

Post by biolizard89 » Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:39 pm

signup292 wrote:what if we give preference to those who already have a dot com

for example if it came down to some dispute between 2 people we will refer to whatever has already been resolved at dot com level

also, this does not say that people who own Microsoft.bit won't own it anymore, they will simply have to wait until Microsoft pays them a certain amount for it. and until then, the common endorsed DNS resolving thing would not resolve the link

and if some people are upset that their Microsoft.bit is not resolving they can make and promote their own DNS resolving thing.

let's not try to solve the problem, let's offload the ethics to what already is
It is not possible for a Nakamoto blockchain to reference external data for its blockchain validation logic. Therefore we can't check who owns microsoft.com in order to validate transactions for microsoft.bit. Sugarpuff proposed something similar a few months ago; it was rejected because it was completely impossible to implement.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

signup292
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

.

Post by signup292 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:09 am

.
Last edited by signup292 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

biolizard89
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Preventing trademark infringement

Post by biolizard89 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:29 am

signup292 wrote:Thank you for replying. But I was not referring to Nakamoto blockchain external data validation logic referencing stuff. I was asking for a simple if statement at the highest level of the client. If address entered = microsoft.bit, do not resolve. Can someone please tell me if I am crazy because I do not understand how this is impossible.
There are two distinct issues: squatters trying to hold a name hostage so they can sell it to the trademark holder, and squatters trying to hold a name without selling it so that they can drive traffic to their site. Blacklisting trademark violating names at the NMControl level (as you appear to be proposing) does not address the 1st issue. In effect, your proposal would result in squatters holding microsoft.bit as before, the only difference is that the squatters would only be people who are trying to sell it to Microsoft or who want to DoS Microsoft (i.e. the squatters who want to drive traffic to their site would be eliminated). Given that it's likely that Microsoft could already buy microsoft.bit for a reasonable sum of money, this doesn't seem like much of an improvement. Try visiting http://microsoft.bit right now. It doesn't even resolve to an IP; clearly the squatter's goal is not to drive traffic to their site. So your proposal does jack shit for microsoft.bit.

Other than that issue, there are also a lot of perfectly good replies above this explaining why you simply can't automate a trademark dispute resolution process, unless you want to rewrite a lot of trademark laws. Those replies explain it quite well, so I suggest that you read those.
signup292 wrote:Namecoin is in the fucking shit right now, no more excuses, tell me exactly why this is impossible.
I'm being nice enough to humor your suggestion as above, but I *really* don't like your tone. This is a notice that I will not be replying to you anymore in this thread until you show some basic respect.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

signup292
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:02 pm

.

Post by signup292 » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:04 am

.
Last edited by signup292 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply