I found this interesting article about a company claiming right over internet.com.au, worth a read,

http://australia.internet.com/r/article/jsp/sid/11571

some interestng quotes from the story

"Is there any reason why internet.com should be considered a generic? Claims in trademark law are judged on the ability to establish recognition and use."

"Since July 2000 we have been involved in arbitration proceedings against auDa for their prior denials to transfer our domain and only withdrew from the arbitration when the new "generic" auction process was announced." {{AUDA is the .com.au regulating body}}

"Now, like many other legitimate commercial organisations, we have been forced to take part in open bidding despite having, in any other jurisdiction, would be regarded as a legitimate claim in trademark law. It is unfortunate that regardless of the results of the auction, we will now have to resort to serious legal measures to protect our rights."

worrying the way in which some companies think...

mole

Typical bully boy tactics. Large companies need to charge their way through things, that's the name of the game in today's world. No mercy, no quarter. Only the courts can stop them.

__________________
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Sir Francis Bacon

dotsofdomains

Although australia.internet.com has, apparently, persuaded some jusrisdictions to trademark <internet.com>, a court challenge to the validity of such a registration in any Berne convention would, in my opinion, rule the mark invalid on the ground that internet.com as applied to an Internet-related business is purely generic and, thus, incapable of trademark protection.

It is, of course, notable that even Australia won't trademark the domain!!!

This is the sound registration principle applied in most industrialized nations. If, however, australia.internet.com were ever to argue that <internet.com> had acquired "secondary meaning" (that is, that consumers associated the domain name exclusively with its company), I think that trademark law would have to adapt to legislate, by statute, that second level generic terms are not capable of trademark protection as applied to goods and services related to the generic term.

Australia.internet.com should be happy enough that they will receive type-in traffic and leave the trademark argument alone. Just as Barnes & Noble benefits from <book.com> and <books.com> type-in traffic without claiming secondary meaning in those generic terms, so, too, should the Aussie outfit be satisfied with the generic type-in traffic it receives. It is NOT entitled to trademark protection for Internet.com.

domainscot

another big boy bully tactics

pixelman

I think they just want to get news coverage.

There were two stupid companies wanted to claim ownership over "hyperlink" technology and the smiley icon trademark.