Re: [IFWP] Re: Anti-cybersquatting (Trademark Owners) Protection Act

[Diane Cabell]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> That is not what I intended to convey.  The basic idea is that domain
> names are there to be *used*, not *sold*.  If someone does a
> non-commercial site at "catsup.com" that, in my view, should be
> strongly protected, and the site owner should be able to thumb their
> nose at Heinz with no fear of legal hassle.  (That's why I don't
> support the proposed bill under discussion -- too much potential for
> legal harassment.)
>
> But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
> not be protected.  It is not only denying access to commercial users
> who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
> users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't
> be able to pay the speculator).

So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages.  How would you then define what is a
legitimate use and what is not?  Why not one-domain-per-customer?

Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA