No singing “In the Navy” unless you are actually in the Navy
Posted by Greg H. on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:55 am | Tagged as: For Real?, Found in the News
So I was reading an article on CNN about the new TLD’s being considered by ICANN. In the article they were discussing specific complaints addressed by governments such as Saudi Aradia (which objected to .gay and .islam, among others).
Then I ran across this tidbit:
Saudi Arabia isn’t the only government filing complaints with ICANN. American clothing retailer Patagonia has applied for .patagonia, riling up the government of Argentina where the Patagonia region, named by Magellan in 1520, is located. The Royal Australian Navy is objecting to the .oldnavy and .navy extensions due to an Australian law that prohibits anyone not in the navy from using the word without permission.
Immediately my bullshit-o-meter went off the scale. Surely this can’t be right? The Australian Navy has that kind of authority? Well, fine.
Navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy navy.
Come and get me.
Actually, the article, in typical journalistic fashion, isn’t being entirely accurate – or more precisely, factually complete.
The law is actually the DEFENCE (PROHIBITED WORDS AND LETTERS) REGULATIONS 1957. And it does in fact actually spell out the word Navy, as well as Air Force, and a few others that are used fairly commonly such as Regular Army, and Army Reserve.
However, what the article fails to point out is that the law only applies to commercial enterprises. Specifically:
(1)
For this regulation, the use, in connexion with a trade, business, calling or profession or by an organization or body of persons, of:
(a)
a word, or words, specified in the second column of a Part of Schedule 1, being a word or words that is or are descriptive or indicative of:
(i)
a part of the Naval Forces, Military Forces or Air Forces of a part of the Queen’s dominions; or
(ii)
a service or body of persons associated with the defence of the Commonwealth; or
(b)
a group of letters specified in the third column of a Part of Schedule 1, being a group of letters that is descriptive or indicative of:
(i)
a part of the Naval Forces, Military Forces or Air Forces of a part of the Queen’s dominions; or
(ii)
a service or body of persons associated with the defence of the Commonwealth;
is a restricted use.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, either in the US or Australia.
That said, it seems to me that what the intent of the law was to prevent people from having their customers think that a specific business was somehow connected to, affiliated with, or endorsed by a particular branch of the armed forces, which is a stance I can agree with, especially with so many young men and women in harm’s way right now – everyone loves a patriot (sort of).
All of that aside, I am not sure how far Australia is willing to push ICANN into enforcing a specific local legislation on the rest of the world, especially when there are already websites on the Internet that would violate that law (www.oldnavy.com for starters). Yet, Old Navy makes no claim to be “descriptive of, a part of, or associated with” any part of the Australian Navy – and maybe that should be the guide. As in real life, if someone misrepresents themselves as being affiliated with a government organization when they aren’t, then you take action to stop the offense.
Though, you have to wonder, if you publish a book about the Navy, called The Navy, in Australia, have you broken the law? And, more importantly, would anyone really care?
My reading of that law and others is that calling a both The Navy would be ok – but calling your publishing company Navy Books would not be. Most of these laws are ignored until someone tries to pass themselves off as part of the services or creates a nuisance – they provide a useful backup but one that is very rarely used.
I happen to agree with your interpretation, imatfaal. What I am not sure about is the Australian Navy’s logic behind their complaint – unless they feel that extensions .navy would confuse people into thinking they were on a real naval force’s website, which I can understand.
However, that still leaves the objection to .oldnavy as being, at best, somewhat random in my opinion. In that case, they seem to be implying that any URL containing the word navy is a violation of their law, which leads me back to the original question – how far can they go to enforce their law on the rest of the Internet?