@matoken.eth Thanks, got it, of course one cannot prevent people sending erc-tokens to my/any erc-wallet-address. My need is/was to prevent that the ENS-address (example.eth) isn’t able to receive anything as long as I decide to do so. Deleting the eth-address from the resolver that is set is obviously what I have been looking/asking for.
Why? I think this might be interesting for all the people that registered trademarks like Apple, google, louisvitton, gucci, …
Opensea and other more or less centralized marketplaces have already delisted these ENS-domains by arguing with trademark violation.
I don’t see this (1.) due to the IP class system (goods/services) of international trademarks and (2.) the need to use the domain in the registered classes. In DNS-world law-suits often ended up pro the trademark-owner if the court-decision was on e.g. gucci.net. Gucci.net is not able to be registered without getting into economic business-relation with the registry (versign) for the .net-addresses. So a trademark violation might be arguably.
ENS is different to DNS in that field (IMHO) because in ENS you yourself act as Registry (level 1) by calling the smart contract and you set the resolver (level 1). In DNS world this is done by the registry (level 1; verisign, PIR, afilias, denic, …) and the enduser (level 2; customer) gets his domain fully connected. He (as controller) can tell the address where to point (html, server, IP) but he is not able to “initially create” the domain due to lack of access to DNS-system (forward/reverse lookup). He is only able to ask the registry to register /to create it using his (the registry’s) technology. No trademark owner would sue verisign for creating an entry in the DNS but he would sue the enduser if he is using it in the field of protected goods/services.
In ENS I am the registry myself and if I don’t set the resolver (no forward/reverse lookup possible), the domain is not active and not in use although it was initially created – better prepared for use – on-chain… in my eyes.
What do you think?
Is this a reasonable argumentation in that field? I would be interested in more opinions on that. If there are some lawyers around specialized in the field of trademarks that would be very nice to discuss with’em. I mean, if I’m right this would open up the road to ask Opensea for damage compensation after delisting ENS making it almost impossible to sell… IMHO.
This is not a recommendation on domain-squatting but a real-life use-case. I guess 98% of ENS-domains with trademark-wording are in private wallets actually and they will all face the same question if one (owner of any trademark rights) comes around and asks for transfer and/or compensation for illegal usage.