Without even going into any of the personal and professional attacks
against the Syracuse Study, it is quite clear that if this were the ONLY
evidence of trademark interests gone overboard, it may not be enough to be
convincing. However, there have been no other studies brought forth that
refute that the large majority of trademark v. domain name interests are
NOT infringment cases, and are NOT "cybersquatting" cases.
My own personal experience of 3 to 4 requests for help per week by
telephone and/or email yields at least 2 where trademark holders are
attempting to reverse hijack the domain name. Yet the issue of reverse
hijacking is not addressed by any WIPO study, or by anything I've seen from
INTA (despite INTA's claim that it "speaks for all domain name holders").
The most recent call for help came from the holder of "pseudo.org." She is
allowing me to reveal that information to the public. Pseudo is a common
word used by the domain name holder for her personal calendar, yet the
trademark holder is claiming infringement and dilution regardless of the
non commercial nature of the site.
Cases of dilution, infringement, and "cybersquatting" are won by the
trademark holder. Thus, there is no need for "extra-legal" special
privilege for trademark holders. So even regardless of the
personal/professional attacks on Milton Mueller and his study, there is
still no evidencce that greater rights be given to trademark holders on the
Internet than they receive in any other media.
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
