At 08:44 PM 3/1/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>On 02-Mar-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> At 10:54 PM 3/1/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> >I'm sorry I wrote that to you as a private post.
>> >
>> >OK:
>> >
>> >The right to use a trademark is recognized as a kind of property, of which
>> >the owner is entitled to the exclusive enjoyment to the extent that it has
>> >been actually used. Hamilton-Brown v. Wolf Bros, 240 US 251 (1916).
>> >
>> >see the other cases discussed in chapter 2:14 of McCarthy's entitled
>> >"Trademarks are property rights."
>>
>> Thank you for the cite Martin. If anything, this can make the process even
>> stronger. Under this cite, a trademarked TLD *is* property.
>
>Not necessarily in the term you mean it. Courts have also held that trademark
>rights are limited in scope. The issue at hand is how limited, and only the
>court system can decide that.
>It is issues like this that PLAINLY show why mandatory ADR would be a very bad
>thing, in that it would further limit the availablility of cases to permit a
>fleshing out of this issue in the judicial system.
Actually, ADR is not the issue at the moment. In fact, it may be irrelevant
if TLD's need to be trademarked anyway.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
