Set Now Solutions specializes in online marketing and web-based productivity solutions.

Someone recently asked me what the difference is between a .net and .com domain name. That is an excellent question.

Back when the web was new and beautiful, .com, .org and .net meant something. Your domain name reflected who you were. .com was for business entities, .org was for non-profit organizations, and .net was for Internet Service Providers and other types of networks. What happened?

Somewhere along the path to the commercialization of the web, domain name registration companies emerged and the sale of domain names became big business. With profit motives quickly obliterating the intended use of the different web extensions, many of the domain name registration companies, actually sent email to domain name owners asking them to register their name for all extensions available to protect their copyright. For example, if you had the name "mybusiness.com," you were encouraged to buy "mybusiness.org," and "mybusiness.net." Not only did Network Solutions, and other domain name registration companies make money from the first registration, they were generating new business by saying it is okay to own all three domain extensions, regardless of your business type. No one did anything then, and now it's become a very messy situation.

How does this affect you - A web site owner?

The first issue, and foremost to many, you are affected financially. By encouraging "defensive" domain name purchases to protect your name, you can triple your cost when registering a domain name. For example, a company who would only have registered one domain name is encouraged to register the 3 extensions .com, .net and .org and pay the renewals on them in subsequent years.

The fear and fact of domain names being gobbled up gave rise to the addition of new domain name extensions. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is added seven new TLDs (top-level domains) such as .biz, .tv and .info. Should your company buy all of the new extensions? Wouldn't this cause the same cycle of unavailable domain names?

This means that adding new domain extensions doesn't solve the problem of unavailable domain names unless the domain name applicants are reviewed to be appropriate for the extension, either by the Registration Company or ICANN.

The second issue affects your rights. If two companies with similar names are battling for ownership, how are web address debates being decided in the courts?

For example, there was a dispute between The World Wildlife Fund who owns the domain name wwf.org, and the World Wrestling Federation who owned wwf.com. There is a contract in place between the two companies about the limited use of the initials by the World Wrestling Federation, because The World Wildlife Fund did not want to be associated with wrestling. The World Wildlife Fund won the right to the domain name wwf.com even though it is clearly an organization and should only be entitled to the .org domain name designation.

The domain name wwf.org was registered in 1992. The domain name wwf.com was registered in 1994 and the World Wrestling Federation estimated that it would cost $50 million to change its logo and re-brand their product based upon the court's recent decision. They intended to appeal but it raised the question - will the World Wildlife Fund petition to own wwf.biz, wwf.info and the rights to all other extensions beginning with the initials wwf? You may find it interesting that the dispute over wwf.com, which cost the World Wrestling Federation so much money back in the early 2000's, is now being redirected to wrestlingtour.com.

If a trademarked name entitles an entity to all domain name extensions, wouldn't that negate domain name extensions altogether? Under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN, trademark owners can only take away names that someone is using "in bad faith." An example of a sign of bad faith is registering a name "primarily for the purpose of selling" it to a trademark holder. Under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, trademark owners can only take away names that someone is using "in bad faith."

Other interesting cases to note:

• Pop artist Madonna won her case in October 2000 against Dan Parisi, who registered and used Madonna.com as a pornography site. The WIPO declared that Parisi did not have any trademark right to the name and they ordered Parisi to transfer ownership of the domain name to Madonna.
• Gordon Sumner, A.K.A. the musician Sting, recently lost his battle to win the rights to sting.com because he had not trademarked the name.
• In early 2001, Bruce Springsteen was denied rights to brucespringsteen.com, which was being used as a fan club web site. The site owner, as stated in a CNN article, had "demonstrated that he has some rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and (Springsteen) has failed to demonstrate that the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith."

You do not have too agree with any or all of the decisions rendered in the above examples. The point is that the rules not only need to be defined but they need to be enforced. Should a company, who has a trademark on a name, be entitled to all domain name extensions and if so, then are domain name extensions necessary?