>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Admin request of type /\bcancel\b/i at line 2 >Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:35:23 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 7 21:35:22 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from fifth.interport.net (fifth.interport.net [199.184.165.5]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0CFF057 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:35:20 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from gateway.frosszelnick.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] >[38.160.122.2]) > by fifth.interport.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA16740 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:29:20 -0400 (EDT) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) >Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 21:34:42 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: InternetNews.com article on "cybersquatters" >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Ms. Barry - reporters get things wrong all the time. What was your actual >quote regarding petitions to cancel? > > >Cybersquatters Battle Back July 6, 1999 > >http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_156711,00.html > >By Brian McWilliams >InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives > >As corporate trademark attorneys scour the Internet for sites that infringe >on their registered marks, some so-called cybersquatters are discovering >novel ways to battle back and protect their domains. > >The latest case involves an Inglewood, California computer technician named >Lawrence Tolliver, who had hopes last July of getting in on the e-commerce >boom by building a web portal site for online shopping. But like many >would-be Web entrepreneurs, Tolliver found most of the prime dot-com real >estate was already taken. He spent hours at domain registration sites >trying to find the perfect address for his online business, ultimately >settling for the awkward -- but he hoped serviceable -- Web address >www.www-shopping.com. > >Little did he know at the time that he was about to step on the toes of the >Irvine, California company founded in 1996 as Shopping.com, which would >later be acquired by Compaq and the AltaVista Co. as part Compaq's push >into online retailing. Last week, Shopping.com became the property of >venture firm CMGI, Inc., as part of its acquisition of AltaVista. > >At his Web address, Tolliver has assembled a home-made looking collection >of links and affiliate programs, and has had about 4,800 visitors since it >went live in August of 1998. > >This past May, however, Tolliver's site came onto the radar of Compaq's >trademark attorneys. The company sent him a letter saying he was infringing >on Compaq's trademark and demanded that Tolliver give up the site by June >10th. > >Although he says he can't afford to consult an attorney, Tolliver said >Tuesday he's certain that Compaq is in the wrong, because "shopping" is a >generic term. > >"I don't know why I should have to give up my site just because they think >I purposely tried to trade off their name and confuse their customers. In >order to find my site, you have to purposely be looking for it," said >Tolliver. > >[snip] > >While trademark holders have the right and responsibility to protect their >marks from infringement, some observers say attorneys are misusing their >marks online, particularly in the case of generic terms, and even violating >professional conduct guidelines. > >"There are ethics involved. If a domain name is not infringing, threatening >domain holders with lawsuits is unethical and the trademark holder should >be held responsible," said Mikki Barry, president of the Domain Name Rights >Coalition, which represents small businesses and Internet users in domain >name battles against trademark holders. > >Barry advises clients who are in circumstances like Tolliver's to file a >petition with the US Patent and Trademark Office, which can ultimately >revoke a trademark if it's misused by the holder. According to Barry, such >a petition costs $200 to file, considerably less than mounting a full legal >challenge. > >Another defense tactic being tested by domain holders involves filing a >complaint with the appropriate Bar association. > >The rights of trademark holders online are expected to be bolstered by >proposed legislation introduced in the US Senate earlier this month. The >Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act would make it illegal to >register a domain that included someone else's trademark with the intent of >selling it later. Under the proposed law, repeat offenders could be fined >up to $300,000 for each violation. > >Barry says the bill, despite its name, does little to protect consumers and >is skewed in favor of trademark holders. > >"It looks like another Communications Decency Act," she said. "It's a vague >law intended to protect the trademark lobby, and it would make perfectly >legitimate non-commercial speech criminal." > > > > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
