Posted by: Sk | February 13, 2009

4 Domain reservation and subsequent questions

1. You pay 10 USD in order to reserve a domain in org., net., com. etc.

2. What is the arising problem? A name is usually linked to a company. A company should be linked to a country. If the registration of a company in a country is so expensive, it is because it warrants that a name, logo, etc. not be used by another inside of a certain frame, depending on the state, by legal means, because the institutions registering have the warrant of state.

3. What happens with internet? May an unknown system with polar and electronic combinations warrant for the use of a name? Of course, not. Consequently, asking already 10 USD for a warrant which is none, is a fraud. This question arises specially through the appearance of so called blogs, which operate actually as subsidiary web pages in many cases already. Word Press warrants (but doesn’t get paid for it) that you are the only user of a domain with (I’d change it for, it would help to reveal the fraud in all its extensions). But Word Press will never warrant that there is no other .com, .org, etc. using the same domain, as it seems of evidence, that the attachment of clears the difference. Unluckily for everyone, it is more the contrary. Tests, through ‘’ and ‘’ tend to prove that people may confuse easily a ‘fake’ with the original, just thinking it is some kind of annex if not the original itself, even if the domain name is different and just the ‘title of blog’ coincidental (Ministry of Defense, Israel).And precisely: Coca Cola has paid millions in order to warrant exclusive use of the name in all countries, and it is a fact that Burger King lost the use of name in Australia, because it happened that they arrived too late for registration. Australian Burger King is thus not the original American one, without the American having the right to claim that theirs is the name, as it is not, there. Now, has the Ministry of the Defense of Israel a registered name everywhere in the world, in English?? Is it a question? They may certainly claim that it is an official institution, and thus doubling of name generally forbidden (if international law’d be respected …). A sane Spaniard would answer, yes, of course, in Hebrew. But in English? May you say that you have the right to present a national official institution in a language which is not an official language of the country? In short, we will see the Spanish Ministry of Tourism in Japanese, and who’d claim? Even worse are brands like ‘Bendicks’. I’m sure Bendicks hasn’t an international cover for their name. The appearance in Google or anywhere gives wicked ideas. Thus it is for logos, stamps, seals, etc. In Ecuador law says, that: “the logo or brand name may not be used if it is already in general knowledge of the people inside of the same branch of activity”. Here, you may really not say that Yves Saint Laurent is generally known. Consequently it is used by many fashion shops just for the pleasure, as well as Dior, etc. May Yves Saint Laurent claim for the exclusive international use of his name? Or logo? He hasn’t paid in Ecuador for it, thus he can’t claim. If I use this logo in Ecuador, I can’t be pursued by law. If I show it in internet, may you claim because it is visible in France? You may forbid this page to be shown in France, but never in Ecuador, if you can. French law can’t be rule for an international page, and consequently, it may avoid diffusion in France, but not forbid a page. (Gravest attempt against the right of nation’s auto determination in their use of organs of legislating authorities.)If they find the way to avoid diffusion in France, it would allow too, stopping the diffusion of French, Belgian and other vulgarities in Muslim countries or other whose legislations forbid that kind of development of customs. Instead of driving things so far as to think of the possibility of punishing crime under French law in countries with different legislation, as it was in conversation in 2003, infringing clearly international law saying that ‘a crime can only be judged in the country where it was committed through the laws as given in that country’. It’s not that it’s a dictatorship in their country, while obviously they think that their law is the summit of perfection so that they go so far as to impose or try their law as in cases of the Credit Lyonnais affair in California, US, it’s that they want the whole world submitting to the same idiocy. Allow the freedom of speech, France?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: