At 09:47 PM 6/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>The problem, for business is the question of what defines prior
>commercial use. One would think that incorporation would qualify, but
>that isn't at all clear in the text. Besides, many Internet start-ups
>have a different incorporation name than the product that they are
>trying to market. One would also hope that a pending trademark
>registration would do the job. However, the way I read it, there is not
>much room for personally owned domain names.
"Commercial use" is well defined in the case law and Lanham Act.
However, before everyone gets too exercised about that bill, remember
it is just a bill, not law. Whether it will ever become law, in either its
present or another form, remains to be seen. In short, don't make the
mistake of the spammers who jumped on that one bill and started
prefacing all their spam with references to it as though it were already
the law.
Bill Lovell
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owner-Domain-Policy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> Behalf Of John B. Reynolds
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 9:04 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
>>
>>
>> I did not miss the "ors". It is the "ors" that cause the
>> problem. The text
>> in question is not a list of defenses. It comes after the following:
>>
>> Prima facie evidence that a registration or use was
>> fraudulent or in bad
>> faith would require satisfaction of the following elements:
>>
>> A registration is considered fraudulent if it is not the
>> registrant's name
>> OR the DN holder did not make prior commercial use of the name.
>>
>> Martin Schwimmer wrote:
>> >
>> > A previous poster missed two "ors" in the section.
>> Defenses to use of the
>> > name include it being the legal first name OR the legal
>> surname OR the DN
>> > owner made prior use.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >I hate to say it, but that looks like where we're headed ... today.
>> > >
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Owner-Domain-Policy
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> >> Behalf Of John B. Reynolds
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 3:43 PM
>> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Subject: Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> >> > (3) the identifier is not the defendant's legal first name
>> >> or surname or
>> >> > the defendant had not used the identifier in legitimate
>> >> commerce before
>> >> the
>> >> > earlier of either the first use of the registered trademark or
>the
>> >> > effective date of its registration.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So, in order to avoid a fine for registering one's own name,
>> >> one would have
>> >> to have "used the identifier in legitimate commerce" prior to its
>> >> registration. This would effectively outlaw non-commercial
>> >> personal domain
>> >> names.
>> >>
>>
