Gene and all,
Agreed Gene. And hence IOD would than be in a very good
legal position for filing additional charges (Criminal), of intent to
defraud and willfully directly involving a Department of the US Government
in that they filed for a TM, in full prior knowledge that IOD has used the
.WEB in commerce prior to CORE filing with the USPTO for a TM
on .WEB. Further, the NTIA may also be involved through CORE's
filing should IOD have notified directly or indirectly any person of the
NTIA office of such use of .WEB in commerce.
Should Chris Ambler and IOD wish to come out of this smelling like
rose, so to speak, with a broad section of the Internet Stakeholders,
this might be advisable to at least look into pursuing. It could indeed
"Blow the lid off" of the ICANN situation given the involvement that
CORE has, through Mike Roberts with ICANN and previously
the gTLD-MoU effort.
Gene, I think you can follow this out the reast of the way, as can others
without any of my help.... I just thought that it would be prudent and
advisible that everyone on these lists see where things could, or
are likely to head from here from a potential legal standpoint.
Gene Marsh wrote:
> At 05:43 PM 7/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >Gene and all,
> >
> > Of course you are correct. However I was eluding to the fact that
> >CORE "Could" make this claim given the circumstances in order
> >to strengthen their position, and cast a shadow over IOD and their
> >claim to .WEB from a legitimate "Use" position.
> >
> > It should also be noted that I did not see a TM filing listed on .WEB by
> >IOD, though there very well may be one. However there is one pending
> >from a CORE member with the USPTO.
> >
>
> If the USPTO is true to form, their due diligence will uncover prior use as
> a "service mark", therefore rendering the CORE application null and void.
>
> >Gene Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> Abandonement, in legal terms, has specific meaning. Intellectual property
> >> typically must be unused (and unmarketed) for a period of 2 years or more
> >> to even be considered abandoned.
> >>
> >> This should not be an issue at all for IOD.
> >>
> >> Gene...
> >>
> >> At 02:03 PM 7/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
> >> >Gordon and all,
> >> >
> >> > The one big problem that IDO has here is that their Registry is
> >> >currently not in operation at this time, and hence could be grounds
> >> >for CORE claiming that IOD has abandon their (TM? - SM) on
> >> >.WEB.
> >> >
> >> >Gordon Cook wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> For release Monday, 19 July, 1999
> >> >>
> >> >> San Luis Obispo, California
> >> >>
> >> >> Lawyers for Image Online Design, Inc., owner of the .WEB Internet
> Domain
> >> >> Registry, today sent letters to the Council of Registrars (CORE) and
> >> >> Name-Space, requesting that they cease all use of Image Online Design's
> >> .WEB
> >> >> trademark. "Image Online Design owns valuable trademark rights in
> .WEB, and
> >> >> we have invested substantial time, effort and money developing our
> registry
> >> >> business in connection with the .WEB mark," said CEO John Frangie.
> Image
> >> >> Online Design uses the service mark .WEB to identify its Internet domain
> >> >> name registry and registrar services. "Image Online Design wants to make
> >> >> sure there is no confusion over who owns the .WEB registry and the
> >> rights to
> >> >> the trademark," added Frangie.
> >> >>
> >> >> Image Online Design began operating its .WEB registry in July,
> 1996, and
> >> >> has continuously offered registry and registrar services for its clients
> >> >> throughout the United States and around the world. "At the beginning,"
> >> >> noted Frangie, "it was expected that new registries would be added to
> >> IANA's
> >> >> root servers by October of 1996; that was IANA chief, Jon Postel's
> original
> >> >> plan." The .WEB registry has always been fully operational and many
> >> >> Internet users enjoy unfettered access to Internet names in Images
> Online
> >> >> Design's .WEB registry. The addition would allow the rest of the
> >> Internet's
> >> >> users access to those names in the .WEB registry. Despite hang ups with
> >> the
> >> >> addition new top-level domains to the root servers, now operated by
> Network
> >> >> Solutions under a U.S. Government contract, Image Online Design has
> >> >> continued its .WEB registry services while actively participating in the
> >> >> debate to add new registries.
> >> >>
> >> >> The letters simply ask that CORE and Name-Space cease their use of
> our
> >> >> trademark. "We're looking forward to competing with both CORE and
> >> >> Name-Space," said Frangie, "but their use of .WEB clearly infringes upon
> >> our
> >> >> rights, and confuses consumers. I'm sure that this will be worked out
> >> >> quickly and amicably."
> >> >>
> >> >> "Trademark protection is an important issue surrounding the Internet
> >> >> today," said Wes Monroe, attorney for Image Online Design. Monroe also
> >> >> explained, "Courts have consistently held that traditional trademark
> >> >> protection extends to the Internet's domain name system, and registry
> and
> >> >> registrar services are no exception. CORE, by filing applications for
> >> >> federal trademark registration for six marks, including .WEB, has
> indicated
> >> >> that it believes that trademark rights apply to domain registry and
> >> >> registrar services."
> >> >>
> >> >> About Image Online Design
> >> >>
> >> >> Image Online Design, Inc., of San Luis Obispo, California,
> operates the
> >> >> .WEB Internet domain registry. More information about the company and
> its
> >> >> .WEB registry can be found at its corporate web site,
> http://webtld.com or
> >> >> http://nic.web.
> >> >>
> >> >> #######
> >> >> ****************************************************************
> >> >> The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK
> >> Report
> >> >> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
> >> >> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) The only Good ICANN is a Dead
> ICANN
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN and How it
> Will
> >> >> Impact the Future of the Internet
> http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
> >> >> ****************************************************************
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >> >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> >> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >> >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> >> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ++++++++++
> >> Gene Marsh
> >> president, anycastNET Incorporated
> >> 330-699-8106
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ++++++++++
> Gene Marsh
> president, anycastNET Incorporated
> 330-699-8106
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
