I think the real reason is that firms and individuals seek domain names that
reflect their long-held trademark names and advertising logos exactly. For
example, I am known as the CyberPoet, having had that moniker professionally
and privately since 1979; currently www.cyberpoet.com is held by a poetry &
art place in St. Paul, MN -- previously it was held by computer consulting
firm in California. I would not be interested in accepting Cyber-Poet,
Cberpoet.com, CyberPoets.com, Cybrpoet.com, etc. I might settle for a .net
address, but that doesn't reflect the fact that I am in business under that
name; my clients always look for me at www.cyberpoet.com and are suprised
when they don't find me there...

I hope that clears up the reason why litigation about domain names exists.
-- Marc

In a message dated 10/11/99 10:43:10 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>This question may have an obvious answer but so far I don't see it (under
>my
>nose). Appreciate comments.
>
>Since a 1-letter change seems to secure a domain name, why are there ever
>any (putting it in absurd extreme) collisions among those interested in
>protecting names? This question was in mind re the Avery-Dennison v. Sumpton
>case, but more so since there exist e.g..'dr.email, doctoremail, and
>doctor-email' domains (I shouldn't have let the first lapse? Perhaps,
>Perhaps not, Perhaps immaterial re some issue?). Of course, the simpler
>the
>format the greater name recognition.  And what else?
>
>:) ldmf.