GEO Legal questions

[silverclick]

I'm interested to know of any experience of owning pure geo .com names.

Example: texas.com, seattle.com or even ireland.com

and any legal issues that have come up. I'm looking at purchasing a name but would like to know thoughts on this or if you can point me to someone who would know.

[jberryhill]

http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/99602.htm

Moreover, we are persuaded by the reasoning of the Panel in Brisbane City Council v. Warren Boulton Consulting PTY LTD, D2001-0047 (WIPO May 7, 2001), and the Panel in City of Salinas v. Baughn, FA 97076 (Nat Arb. Forum June 4, 2001), with respect to the limited applicability of the Policy to geographically descriptive marks. As the learned Panels noted in both City of Salinas and Brisbane City, the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (the“Interim Report”), issued on April 12, 2001, contained a detailed discussion pertaining to “Geographical Indications, Indications of Source and other Geographical Terms” and suggest that such names of geographical places are not within the Policy. While this discussion is not determinative of our decision here, it does inform our basic belief that the names of geographical locations, such as the City of Salinas, have a limited capacity to perform the function of a trademark as required by the Policy. See, e.g., Interim Report at paragraph 277 (stating that “the protection of place names within the gTLDs is a novel concept”); see also, Interim Report at paragraph 282 (stating that to provide such protection, it would be necessary to revise the Policy by way of “the incorporation into it of an additional cause of action”). See Brisbane City and City of Salinas, supra. As further noted in Brisbane City Council v. Warren Bottom Consulting Pty Ltd., No. D2001 -0047 (WIPO May 7, 2001), “The assumption which underlies this discussion in the Interim Report appears to be that, as a general rule, place names per se are not trademarks for the purposes of the Uniform Policy.”