Martin and all, How so? Why would he be? What is the criterion for that evaluation? What justifies this position in Harald's country, or any other for that matter? Such a claim or attitude seems paramount to Reverse name hijacking attempt... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And if Harald's next door neighbor in Norway adopted the mark NEW YORK > YANKEES he would be doing so in bad faith. > > >"Unique they may be, but not terribly famous on this side of the pond." > > > >Here we run into a familiar problem. The laws of the nations of the world > >define famousness in strictly national terms. WIPO sought to craft a > >procedure that required a new category of globally famous marks, but for > >what I think are political reasons people sometimes obscure this. There > >are a lot of people (or people with clients) who hold nationally famous > >marks and think they should have a prior right to their domain > >name even in a trans-national medium. > > > >There are a lot of problems with this expansive view. One, of course, it > >that it expands the rights of (national) famous marks well beyond their > >intended scope. And if even WIPO wouldn't wear it... > > > >Another problem is that it is quite possible, and far from unheard of, for > >two different firms to have a famous mark that is the same word in > >different nations. > > > >While I think that Harald's analysis on his web site of the applicability > >of famous marks to the net is about right, my fallback view is that > >whatever is done absolutely must limit its reach to GLOBALLY famous marks > >-- and many, probably most, of the thousands and thousands of NATIONALLY > >famous marks won't qualify. > > > >All that said, if the defendant in this case is a US person, then it seems > >quite appropriate to use US law. And the NY Yankees are arguably the most > >(in)famous baseball team in the US. > > > >Furthermore, if the domain name was registered in the US, the US Congress > >in its wisdom has decided that the issue can be adjudicated in a US court. > >US choice of law principles will then apply, as will US famousness. [If > >the basis for jurisdiction against a foreigner is in rem, odds are US law > >applies. If the basis for jurisdiction is minimum contacts, it gets > >complex. There are no cases that I know of which provide direct guidance > >on what law applies when the defendant in an alleged cybersquatting case > >is foreign and there is minimum contacts jurisdiction. It would depend on > >the facts.] > > > >On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > >> At 15:18 29.12.99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote: > >> >The registrant may in fact be a Mets fan. > >> > > >> >http://www.nypost.com/business/20655.htm > >> > > >> >NEW YORK YANKEES would be an example of a unique famous mark. > >> Pardon? > >> This side of the pond, I don't even know if they play baseball, oval-ball > >> football or some other game. > >> Unique they may be, but not terribly famous outside the US. > >> > >> Harald A > >> > >> -- > >> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > >-- > >* Y2K "PREPAREDNESS": MY E-MAIL WILL BE UNAVAILABLE DEC 31 - JAN 2+ * > > > >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA > >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm > > -->It's warm here.<-- 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
