> I think that the legal precedent is that you cannot trademark
> e-genericword
>
> If you could, the entire dictionary would have been trademarked
> with an e in front of it during the dot com boom.
IANAL either, but it seems you should not try and use common
sense to predict what the courts
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/2/203846/0944
I don't agree with his ideas, but they're humorous.
JMR
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing you
On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 09:52 PM, Katz Global Media wrote:
Cyber Squatting was mentioned earlier and that is not relevant here
becasue the name was intended for a forum for satellite users to
discuss technology and not registered to sell to 3M.
Gosh, did your customer ever consider satelli
Dear Friends,
EzEz.com is offering 17 ounces (troy) of gold at
$351 for a limited time on a first-come, first-served
basis. This offer will continue until all 17 ounces
have sold.
By way of comparison, the asking price for gold at
Kitco.com is $349.50 as I type this message, so our
asking price i
OK kind people of the e-gold list :-)
I have a real life scenario for you to chew on and spit out that just arose today and
just happend to fit in perfectly with the
discussion. You can pretend you are the legal team so choose sides now and let's see
the scenarios. I will comment after I hear
I forgot something...
I don't think search engines give much credit to the name of a site. For
example, there is domain called "www.filematrix.com". Probably, a guy bought
the domain to be able to sell it to me (but I have no intention to buy
that). There was never a site referred by this domain n
George,
I just bet that "sucker" uses more than 12 litres of unleaded gas per
hour!
GK
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:09:42 +0300, "FileMatrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> That's not a UFO! Here's a UFO: www.moller.com ;)
>
>
> Regards,
> George Hara
> www.filematrix.xnet.ro
--
> If you can prove that, there are several other UDRP cases (I can dig
> some up if he pays me) that were settled in favor of the respondent
> (domain holder) given baid faith could not be proven.
Actually just go to http://udrp.law.cornell.edu/udrp/advsearch.html
Check the following:
X Respon
Article source: http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5059676.html?tag=nl
or http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5059676.htm
Ryan's blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/octal
One of HavenCo's major customers: http://www.thegoldcasino.com
Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk?
An ef
> anyone know of a site that "legally" accepts bets on issues such
> as civil/criminal trials?
Great idea, I'll put it in my queue. Check back in 18 months.
Interesting concept, companies could use this hedge their legal liability;
bet against themselves in the case.
I'm not sure who would be w
10 matches
Mail list logo
