" In the decision Image Online Design, Inc. vs. ICANN it was stated that “The USPTO's prior stance on the function of TLDs as generally not being source indicating is a relic of an essentially exclusive ".com" era, which is rapidly coming to an end.” " Yes, "it was stated" by the losing side, in the complaint. There is a widespread misconception that the USPTO is in the business of "granting trademarks" as if it was up to the USPTO to determine what is, or what is not, a trademark. That is not what the USPTO does. The USPTO is in the business of registering trademarks - i.e. granting federal registration status to an existing mark under ordinary principles of common law. The USPTO does not determine what things are, or are not, trade or service marks. They merely determine which trade or service marks are federally registrable. A trade or service mark remains any word, symbol or device used on or in connection with goods or services so as to provide a distinctive indicator of the source or origin thereof. Now, "Calvin Klein" is not in the business of printing up labels for people to sew into their own clothing. They are in the business of making clothing and applying a label saying "Calvin Klein" to indicate who made the clothing. Likewise "Toyota" manufactures automobiles, and applies the mark "Toyota" to them. They do not manufacture "Toyota" logos for application to your Honda, Kia, or Ford. A gTLD registry, unlike a chartered TLD registry that might be run on some sort of members-only basis or by a brand owner for the purpose of promoting its own goods and services under the brand, IS precisely in the business of registering domain names to all comers so that those others may use the gTLD string for whatever goods and services their heart desires. Those goods and services, offered by the registrants, do not originate with the gTLD registry, and thus the gTLD string is not an indicator that such goods or services do originate with the gTLD registry. The obsession among some over what the USPTO will or will not register indicates a continued misunderstanding of both what is a trade or service mark, and what function the USPTO provides. By way of analogy, my local animal control department requires me to license my dog. Now, they might refuse to license my dog if, for example, my dog doesn't have its current vaccinations or if my dog is a breed which is not legal in my area. But whether or not my dog IS a dog is not up to the local animal control department. They are not in the business of determining whether my dog is a dog. That is a fact which is wholly independent of their function of determining which dogs and under what conditions they will register my dog as a licensed dog.

Your comment is both irrelevant and misleading. The Founding Fathers did not specify the exact administrative body that would administer Intellectual Property, but they did give the power to congress to administer Intellectual Property rights. The basis of that power is debatable - there are two different schools of thought on whether the Commerce clause of the Intellectual Property clause grants congress the power to create the USPTO. However, the USPTO's own website quotes the Intellectual Property clause. The following is taken from the USPTO's website at http://www.uspto.gov/about/bios/cohn_bio.jsp "Since 1790, the basic role of the United States intellectual property system has remained the same: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries (Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution)." However, as I said, all that is really irrelevant. We are not debating whether the USPTO should exist or not. We are debating the policies of the USPTO. My point is that the USPTO should not create significantly different processes to administer trademark law from one industry to another. We cannot have one set of rules for one business class and a completely different set of rules for another business class.

Trademark law is most decidedly NOT designed to favor the less well funded over the more well funded. Among the measures of trademark strength are such things as sales revenue, market recognition, advertising budget, and other parameters which are directly related to wealth. "Calvin Klein" underwear is a stronger mark than "Calvin College" theological seminary PRECISELY because the underwear makes more money than God.

Actually I think that I have been proven right by the events that have been unfolding. We now see before us the inevitable result of an industry without equal protection under the law. Instead of an orderly process to claim rights to a mark, companies are now forced to bid for them. Mr. Berryhill misses the point - we are not talking about the strength of existing trademarks at all, so his point is a bit off topic.

You still don't give any logical reason why anybody who isn't yet actually operating a particular domain ought to be able to get a trademark on it. Trademarks are to protect brands that already exist for actual commerce, not currently-generic words you think you might be able to make into a brand in the future. But perhaps you would rather it be like a game of Monopoly, where whoever lands on a space first can collect rent from everybody who comes there later.

In the United States (as in most countries) a Trademark application can be filed either as "currently in use" or , if you have not yet used the mark, but intend to use it in the future, you may file a Trademark in the United States under the "intent to use" basis. United States Trademark law requires that trademark applicants show proof of use within six months after a trademark is issued, or the trademark is revoked. This means that only applicants who actually use a trademark for Registry Services will be able to maintain the trademark. I am suggesting that the same rules should apply to a hypothetical business class for TLDs that apply to every other business class in the United States.