Scott: Which is why I suggested, but I guess didn't properly verbalize, that it would make sence to put the entity in the correct part of the domain structure. An "Apple" would be international, Joe Apple is local, Apple Towing might be county wide, Apple Bagles might be state wide. Attach them to the appropriate regional domain and you reduce confusion. Since the structure is extensible, it could even include business sectors. I can't see how this would be anything but a better approach. Perhaps search engines specifically tailored to locate and segregate the various Apples (domain related--not bringing up every apple pie recepie) would further clear up the situation. Face it, there's going to be other "Apples". Rather than configuring things so that it's harder to find the right apple and segregate one legitimate apple from the other, why not have a system that clearly segregates them. Since trademark law is based on the potential for confusion, a system that attemps the clear up confusion can only help. Certainly not what we have now. Chuck On 9 Mar 2001, Scott Gifford wrote:
Charles Scott <cscott@gaslightmedia.com> writes:
If one considers the structure of name useage, from local assumed names to registered trademarks by international organizations, the only logical conclusion is to move everything to the regional domain structure and totally do away with .com .net .org .edu and even .gov! It would seem to be the only structure compatible with all scales of naming requirements and should make domain related trademark issues a bit cleaner.
That doesn't help at all. If I have to know that Apple is located in Cupertino, CA to find their domain ("apple.cupertino.ci.ca.us"), I might as well use their IP address. If Joe Apple lives in Cupertino too, who has a better claim to this domain, Apple Computers or Joe Apple? If Apple Records has "apple.newyork.ci.ny.us" and moves to Cupertino, they have to completely change their domain name, and the obvious new name conflicts with Apple Computers.
Geographical naming only makes sense for things that are geographically arranged and never or very rarely move. National or multi-national companies are not geographical in nature, and sometimes move. People are not geographical in nature, and sometimes move. Information is not at all geographical in nature and is in constant motion. I don't think this scheme works well for much besides landmarks. :-)