Milton and all,
Couldn't agree with you more here Milton. After reading the WIPO report
the evidence of you assertion and many of our fears and concerns has
come to pass with respect to WIPO. They are a shameless bunch!
Milton Mueller wrote:
> The issue that Schwimmer raises is whether an administrative law system would be
> fairer than the NSI law. Theoretically, it could hardly be worse, especially if a
> "use in commerce," "likelihood of confusion" and "dilution" analysis was actually
> performed.
>
> In actual fact, however, the admin law system will be defined and administered by
> WIPO. We cannot overlook the institutionalized prejudice that WIPO represents.
> WIPO's report confirms the suspicions that many of us had months ago, which is
> that it is acting as a special interest advocate for trademark interests, and not
> as an impartial adjudicator of the conflicts caused by domain name-trademark
> interactions. WIPO did not devote a single word in that report to the documented
> abuse of innocent domain name holders by aggressive TM lawyers. It did not even
> attempt to put protections against such problems into its proposals. It lavished
> attention on evidence about abuse of TM holders and completely and willfully
> ignored evidence of abuse in the opposite direction.
>
> --MM
>
> Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> > At 04:50 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>p.p.s. Referring to the fact that PSEUDO is a common word, as far as
> > >>trademark law is concerned (distinguishing it from NSI law), there is
> > >>nothing that makes a common word inherently incapable of functioning as a
> > >>trademark, as TIME, TIDE, DIAL, APPLE, SUN, DELL, ORACLE, FORD, LIFE, FOX,
> > >>SPRINT, VISA and TIMBERLAND illustrate.
> > >
> > >Yet that word cannot be ENFORCED as a trademark against someone who is
> > >using it in a completely different context in an Internet domain name.
> > >
> >
> > It is not necessary that the word be "ENFORCED" in order to create havoc.
> > The following
> > was filed by me in the U. S. District Court (Oregon) on Sept. 9, 1997.
> > >
> > "[t]he existence of this spate of cases derives not so much from legal
> > principles as it
> > does from the policy of Network Solutions, Inc. (�NSI�), OPPOSITION Exhibit
> > D, which
> > forces its domain name holders, upon complaint from a registered trademark
> > owner,
> > either to abandon their domain names or expend substantial sums of money
> > that many
> > of them do not have in defending their registrations, with only a copy of
> > the trademark
> > registration and the word of the trademark owner being required as to
> > whether or not
> > the domain name actually infringes the trademark."
> >
> > And we're not talking peanuts here, but six figures and, as you can see
> > from the dates
> > a whole lot of time.
> > That case we won and is now on appeal -- see http://cerebalaw.com/intnet.htm.
> > The case is now on appeal in the 9th Circuit as previously noted.
> >
> > Illegitimas noncarborundum.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
