OK, the decision itself isn't actually over the ownership of a ccTLD, but it was stated as a statement of fact that "The Complainants own and operate the .NU ccTLD, and have registered the trademark .NUDOMAIN in the United States of
America." This is in the context of a dispute over the domain "nudomain.com":
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0480.html
I recall that some RFC (I can't remember exactly which one) said, with regard to issues regarding the management of country code top level domains, that concerns of "ownership" were inapplicable in this context; a ccTLD is delegated to, and managed by, an entity, not "owned" by it.
In the case of .nu, it is assigned as the country code for Niue, and officially delegated to Internet Users Society - Niue, which lets the .NU Domain company operate it. .NU Domain doesn't own it, so the panel misstated the facts.
Regarding the TLD being trademarked, I thought the USPTO didn't allow trademarks on TLDs, saying that they have no source identifying significance?
America." This is in the context of a dispute over the domain "nudomain.com":
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0480.html
I recall that some RFC (I can't remember exactly which one) said, with regard to issues regarding the management of country code top level domains, that concerns of "ownership" were inapplicable in this context; a ccTLD is delegated to, and managed by, an entity, not "owned" by it.
In the case of .nu, it is assigned as the country code for Niue, and officially delegated to Internet Users Society - Niue, which lets the .NU Domain company operate it. .NU Domain doesn't own it, so the panel misstated the facts.
Regarding the TLD being trademarked, I thought the USPTO didn't allow trademarks on TLDs, saying that they have no source identifying significance?
