Doesn't the existence of this article disprove your hypothesis?
At 02:17 PM 8/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Here's another story on ICANN that
>properly frames the debate. And it
>is exactly this perspective that is
>being suppressed by the media.
>
>Excerpts from:
>
>
>http://intellectualcapital
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_182211,00.html
ICANN, NSI at Odds Again Over Names Council Makeup August 13, 1999
By Maura Ginty
InternetNews.com Assistant Editor Business News Archives
Domain Price War Begins August 12, 1999
By Brian McWilliams
InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives
A domain registrar in Germany has quietly kicked off some long-awaited
competition in domain name pricing.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_181351,00.htm
Real money for RealNames
By Julie Landry
Redherring.com
August 10, 1999
http://www.redherring.com/insider/1999/0810/vc-realnames.html?id=yahoo
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
A land-rush pursuant to previously-existing rights. So it's first come
first serve, unless it isn't.
At 10:34 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set forth below that
>>if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole your stuff,
I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set forth below that
if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole your stuff,
that you wouldn't consider it theft because, hey, you weren't prudent.
At 05:33 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> maybe, maybe not. I don't know i
maybe, maybe not. I don't know if Brown would prevail on those theories -
just that those would be plausible thoeries for his lawyer to consider. As
previously stated, my speculation was based on one news article that
doesn't give all the facts necessary to properly evaluate Mayor Brown's
theore
be
inaccurate and material facts may have been omitted).
I do not believe that Willie Brown has superior rights to williesucks.com
vis a vis Mr. Hasse.
At 03:01 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> Did you read the article?
http://vh1459.infi.net/business/docs/domains080899.htm
Support for simplified domain names so far has been very limited
ANDREW ZAJAC
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
For months now, political and Internet power brokers have been wrangling
over how to dole out increasingly scarce and valuable Internet addresse
e Brown Jr. who is known as damayor).
At 02:12 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> DOMAIN FIGHT CAUSES BROWN OUT (POL. Tuesday)
>>
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/21201.h
>> tml
DOMAIN FIGHT CAUSES BROWN OUT (POL. Tuesday)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/21201.h
tml
An opportunistic cybersquatter who holds key domain names in
the race for San Francisco mayor is now on a candidate's
payroll. Incumben
ibm.com was registered in 1986. What is the scope of NSI's claim to the
data relating to that domain?
At 05:30 PM 7/26/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> U.S. Tells Network Solutions To Open Database
>>
>> http://news.excite.com/news/r/990726/17/net-tech-networksolutions
>
>If the US can order NSI (or
Press coverage regarding NSI's new Dot Com Directory, a product based in
part, apparently, on the Whois database:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_168401,00.html
See also today's NY Times.
It is reported that NSI will provide a directory listing at no extra charge
for DN re
If the $500k covers fees pre-ICANN then who were the services rendered on
behalf of (and who signed off on the retainer)? IANA? Then it's IANA's
bill. Did ICANN pick up IANA's bills?
At 11:41 AM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 12:23:46PM -0400, Martin
http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/99/133801.html
ICANN Nixed Deal To Bolster NSI Control Of Registry
By David McGuire, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A.,
23 Jul 1999, 3:24 PM CST
The cash-strapped Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) several months ago rejected a
500 thou divided by $350 is 1428 billable hours, divided by 8 (normal
billing day) is approx 178. There have been only about 200 working days
since ICANN was formed in October. Should've hired in-house if you need
all day every day legal assistance.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>For those who do not know, there will be a Congressional
>Hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
>on "Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?"
>It is scheduled for Thursday, July 22, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.
How can one complain of bias and then report the na
At 08:12 PM 7/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>At 05:01 PM 7/12/99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
No I didn't, ICANN's counsel wrote the long passage you quoted.
>
[snip]
Bill Lovell:
>As to that, I was privileged to hear a description by an NSI attorney
>in the Lockheed Marti
reating confusion about how to tell whether a
>given
>domain name is still available, and if not, who owns it."
>
>
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38576,00.html?tt.yfin..txt.ni
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Why?
At 08:18 AM 7/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> 3. Your Representations. By applying to register for a Domain Name, or by
>> asking us to administer or renew a Domain Name registration, you hereby
>> represent to us that (a) the then-current statements that you made in your
>> Registration Agr
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38546,00.html?tt.yfin..txt.ni
EU probes NSI for antitrust violations
By Dan Goodin
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 29, 1999, 4:50 p.m. PT
In a move likely to intensify controversy over privatizing the registration
of domain names, the European Union is inve
DNRC writes:
In the real world, use of Cadillac for cat food
>and Cadillac for automobiles is permitted. Yet on the Internet, that
>type of use could make you a criminal under this bill."
>
The Cadillac pet food business started before there was a federal dilution
statute (which statute had no r
Who here has read the novel "Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole
(Pulitzer Prize winner in the early '80's)?
Relevance?
At 10:27 AM 6/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>http://www.ibm.com/thinkmag/excerpts/release/main.html
>
> and
>
>http://www.ibm.com/iac/transcripts/internet-privacy-symp/estherdyson.html
>
>Take it from one who knows, Joop, and avoid Kent Crispin by whatever
>means available, including removing him from the list and/or
>ignoring his postings. He is a person with no morals, none
>whatsoever, and there is nothing he won't stoop to to disrupt and
>manipulate others, as was proved for a
>>wwwtabnet.com (where tabnet.com appears to be a competitor of register.com)?
>
>Thats the one that got me.
>
>Likley to cause confusion in the mind of the consumer ?
I checked it out and wwwtabnet.com is indeed active and does indeed promote
the domain name services of register.com. Who are w
FSDFDSFDSA.COM?
wwwtabnet.com (where tabnet.com appears to be a competitor of register.com)?
netscape-register.com?
yahoo-register.com?
At 07:46 PM 6/8/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Ever do a whois on register.com ?
>
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Remember, amateurs built the Ark.
Relevant to recent discussions regarding ownership of the Whois data:
Third Time May Be The Charm For Database Copyright Legislation
Legislators rumble over bill to extend copyright protection to databases
By Brenda Sandburg
The Recorder/Cal Law
June 3, 1999
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/
First Internet Registration Competitor Goes Online
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/wr/story.html?s=v/nm/19990607/wr/intern
et_networksolutions_1.html
Network Solutions Announces register.com as First Testbed Registrar to
Register Names
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990607/va_network_1.html
Thanks to Carl Oppedahl for the correction of the url:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/07ican.html
New York Times today:
Critics See Internet Board Overstepping Its Authority
By JERI CLAUSING
http://ww.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/07ican.html
and related articles. Riveting color photos of Esther Dyson and Don Telage.
Also a report that register.com is open for business
TA and CORE because everything they say is a lie"
At 09:12 PM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Martin B. Schwimmer a écrit:
>
>> I am not employed by or paid by or represent David Maher and don't care
>> whether he controls the non-commercial constituency, assuming, according t
>first of all what the hell has cooper union got to do with me? and second
>of all why can you be honest enough to admit that you hate meuller because
>he whupped your ass in the trademark study war some months ago
LOL.
>
>I judge by results of those who work their ass off to oppose DYSONS,
>>> Now before there is an attempt to distract the list's attention with
>> unfounded accusations about my affiliations, I note that I am not employed
>> by or paid by or represent anyone jockeying for position for control of the
>> non-commercial constituency, and I don't really care who wins out
tterly
inappropriate for any consensus-oriented entity, and why if someone wanted
to perpetuate the status quo and exert power behind the scene, yet retain
the illusion of democracy, they would "delegate" authority to a "consensus
manager."
At 06:28 PM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
Gordon Cook wrote today:
>I have heard now from two sources that ISOC, which kept the non commercial
>domain holders constituency from being recognized in Berlin by saying it
>couldn't give a milimeter on behalf of its 30 constituents, is now engaged
>in a smear campaign against meuller and sondo
That's T. Boone Pickens, one time oil magnate, not T Bone Pickens, one time
oil magnet.
At 05:25 PM 6/1/99 +0100, you wrote:
>William and all,
>
>William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> Sure KCKid. Or was that TBone.no that was just your nickname on
>> Internet Relay Chat. Yes, these are the sort
OK, i understand your response to mean that you are not in communication
with NSI on these issues and that it has not communicated to you the
relevants facts and legal reasoning supporting its theory of ownership of
the whois data. Your views regarding NSI's theory of ownership are your
own. Tha
cross-posting to the WIPO list because it's about WIPO.
I am not thrilled with the expression "competition in DRPs" because I think
it will lead to off-shore jurisdictions catering to pirates. I acknowledge
that getting out from under the Damocles sword of NSI's DRP is not
insignificant, but it
To Network Solutions Inc.
Attn: Don Telage, Esq.
Re: Whois usage rules
I do not agree to the terms reproduced below. I do not acknowledge Network
Solutions' ownership of the data contained in the whois database.
Marty Schwimmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"You agree that you will not reproduce, s
To those of you who will not be attending Berlin but will instead be
attending the INTA conference in Seattle, perhaps we can get together for
drinks and contemplate weighty issues of the day. Lurkers' identities will
be kept confidential. Respond direct, please.
Last week's Washington Post ran the following:
"NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because the
>> company's original agreement with the National Science Foundation specified
>> that it would own any "intellectual property" created by the
>> address-registration business. "
>At 02:16 PM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>>The distinction is meaningless in this discussion, as the poster proposed
>>his personal standard which is lower than the standard for a well-known
>>mark in the most conservative jurisdiction. And the WIPO report uses
I cannot think of a standard that would work *other than*
>unique-and-coined. The problem, if someone with a dictionary word gets
>their mark on the List, is that the dictionary word is now unavailable as a
>domain name for other like-named companies. United Airlines will clamor to
>get "unite
ries have well-known-mark-based remedies"?
Still doubt it.
I didn't get the impression that that was the distinction he was trying to
make.
At 07:20 PM 5/7/99 GMT, you wrote:
>> At 10:56 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>> >At 10:33 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
&
Wired: WHO OWNS WHOIS DATABASE? (POL. Thursday)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/19539.h
tml
At 10:56 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:33 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>>You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
>>personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
>>practice.
>
>Op
rom the existing case law, and would
not grant protection to JOHNNIE WALKER, CADILLAC, NIKE, MARLBORO, CARTIER,
CHANEL, DISNEY or many other of the world's famous marks.
I am cross-posting this to the WIPO list, as this is a proper discussion
for that list.
At 09:31 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wr
Without commenting on the proposed 'exclusionary" practice itself, I note
that Mr. Oppedahl impliedly misstates the standard for being a famous mark.
It is not "coined and unique." Non-coined marks which are famous include
JOHNNIE WALKER, CADILLAC and NIKE.
Demonstrably unique (or more to the
One of NSI's vendors wrote:
>
> I'm not speaking for NSI
You mean "as an openly designated representative."
Well, let's hear from Chrisotpher Clough or Don Telage what was meant when
Clough said to the Washington Post that the data is intellectual property.
, but there is the zone file
> T
So does CORE have a theme song?
At 12:06 PM 5/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 12:40:00PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>[...]
>> Please re-assure us.
>
>There, there, Jay. Everything will be all right. Take your nap,
>and when you wake up you can have some milk and cookies.
>
>--
One of NSI's vendors wrote:
>
> NSI's database isn't significantly different than
> any other company's customer database.
>
Significant differences include:
1) primary function of list is public directory
2) identity of customers is not kept confidential and can easily be
discerned by all (h
>
>This is a subject of debate also for "derived works copyright" and
non-original
>databases but where the database compiler (here, NSI) can prove that it added
>value to the database -- for example, by increasing it due to active sales
efforts.
When the Feist case is discussed, it's holding is
"ICANN's mandate is technical, not policy making."
Review the White Paper at
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm. As an aside, the word
"technical" was in the title of the Green Paper and not in the title of the
White Paper.
wrote:
>On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 05:17:34PM -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> >From today's Washington Post:
>>
>> "NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because the
>> company's original agreement with the National Science Foun
>From today's Washington Post:
"NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because the
company's original agreement with the National Science Foundation specified
that it would own any "intellectual property" created by the
address-registration business. "It's very clear that we ha
Ninth Circuit Rules on Net Trademarks
Registering domain name doesn't establish priority
By Brenda Sandburg
The Recorder/Cal Law
Friday, April 23, 1999
Acquiring a domain name registration does not give someone p
WHO'S KING OF THE DOMAINS NOW? (BUS. Wednesday)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/business/story/19246.h
tml
Will throwing open domain-name registration change the Net at
all? Or are new domains, such as .store and .law, needed for
real compe
NSI skyrockets on fee collection decision
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET News.com
April 21, 1999, 12:30 p.m. PT
HERNDON, Virginia--Network Solutions shares surged 56 percent after the
company reached an agreement with the U.S. Commerce Department that will
let it collect fees from new rivals
n't
>already taken. Make it so, number one.
>
>"Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
>>
>> From Wired: "DOMAIN NAME LIST IS DWINDLING (TECH. 3:00 am)
>>
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/technology/story/19117
>> .html
>>
>
From Wired: "DOMAIN NAME LIST IS DWINDLING (TECH. 3:00 am)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/technology/story/19117
.html
A Wired News investigation found that the .com versions of
nearly all popular words have been taken. Of 25,500 standard
The NSI 10-K (annual report) dated March 30 is available in abbreviated
form at sec.yahoo.com and in longer form at the edgar site. Or call your
broker.
Christopher Clough wrote:
>InterNIC is a brand of registrar functions for Network Solutions, Inc.
>
>Today, Network Solutions' maintains registry functions as a subset
>of its InterNIC operations.
>
PTO Records of the registration of the INTERNIC mark indicate that it was
filed for by AT&T and a
>>I would be interested in knowing if Asensio has a short position in NSOL.
>
>I'd would be interested to know why some folks are more interested in
>people's motivations than in the truth of their statements.
>
>If someone sells NSOL short, that means they are motivated to find dirt,
>just lik
mbs asked:
>> Has NSI had any contacts with Thomson
>> and Thomson recently?
Mr. Clough responded:
> not recently
mbs asked:
>> I noticed that they were running creation date info
>> about two weeks after you removed it, and then they suddenly stopped.
>> Did NSI in any way cause T&
Is it the job of the spokesperson to set forth the truth or attack the
critic? Were Mr. Pope's dealings confidential? Will NSI now disclose all
its confidential business dealings? Has NSI had any contacts with Thomson
and Thomson recently? I noticed that they were running creation date info
ab
The basis for Asensio's misinformation charge is explained in its web site
at www.asensio.com in a document other than the press release cited by
Yahoo. One sentence caught my eye:
"There is no reasonable basis to expect that NSOL's DNS contract will not
completely be terminated on or before its
>From the Law News Network: "PATENT ADR PENDING: There's a new game in
town for companies that want to avoid long and costly court battles. The
National Patent Board, an alternative dispute resolution provider solely
for patent disputes, is open for business"
http://lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/m
ISRAELI COURT FREEZES SEX DOMAIN (POL. 3:00 am)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/18403.h
tml
What's puzzling is that there appears to be two unrelated entities,
Hurricane Electric and Hurricane Interactive Technologies, having class 35
registrations relating to online advertising (although assignment
information is sometimes out of date). hurricane.com appears to be about,
well, hurrican
How will not-for-profit entities such as trade associations, marketing
boards, research consortiums, which exist at the behest of commercial
entities, be treated?
At 09:53 AM 3/10/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>> Questions:
>>
>> What qualifies as a domain name holder?
>> - jay.
It doesn't matter. I don't know how to qualify that speech but if you said
it at your site at tide.com you would be trading on Tide's trademark and if
you made that statement at cavebear.com or tide.sucks or tide.crimson or
tide.insane you wouldn't. And if you sold counterfeit Tide at tide.sucks
A case has been decided which further discusses the issue of domain name as
speech.
Archdiocese of St. Louis and Papal Visit 1999 St. Louis vs. Internet
Entertainment Group, case no:99CV27SNL, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri (Feb. 12, 1999) 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1508. I
ICANN SIMMERS IN SINGAPORE (POL. 9:45 am)
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/18201.h
tml
you about collective trademarks and
certification marks, because that sounds like what you may be interested in.
[legal advice disclaimer, ymmv]
At 10:02 PM 3/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 08:44 PM 3/1/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>On 02-Mar-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
I'm sorry I wrote that to you as a private post.
OK:
The right to use a trademark is recognized as a kind of property, of which
the owner is entitled to the exclusive enjoyment to the extent that it has
been actually used. Hamilton-Brown v. Wolf Bros, 240 US 251 (1916).
see the other cases di
ation.
>Result: F (original registrant retains name, without litigation) Toeppen
still
>had the resgitration at the time of the study. This may still be the case.
>--MM
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> or aircanada.com?
>>
>> At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrot
deltaairlines.com? golly, the fellow must have a good faith reason for
registering that one. No way we should indicate to Congress that we think
that one's a problem.
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Muell
or aircanada.com?
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
>> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
>> knowledge of th
doubt that the third party registration of
cratebandbarrel.com was left out of your definition of infringement.
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
>> take
eddiebauer.com. no reason to tell anyone that we aren't counting that one
in our study.
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
>> takes up is that he
britishairways.com?
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
>> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
>> knowledge
At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
>> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
>> knowledge of the facts (and law
>Given the early nature of the legal conflict, it was clearly inappropriate
for
>Schwimmer to assert that Curry was an infringer and that he (Schwimmer) had
>superior knowledge of the case and that the rest of us should shut up or
go read
>an inaccessible box of materials. If there's any substanti
You raise a good point. I have not encountered good information on the
extent of communication between NSI and (1) NSF; (2) DOC; (3) the US PTO or
(4) anyone else who might have helped, on the topic of TM/DN conflicts,
during the 1994-95 period. Or after that for that matter.
At 05:25 AM 2/26/9
1. Having actually participated in the litigation, I am familiar with not
only Mr. Curry's version (he was under oath when I heard his version - was
he when he spoke to you?), but the versions of every other player in that
drama. I'm not asking the list to believe MTV's story (that case is over)
At 09:54 AM 2/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>And if he was liable for infringement and misappropiation, he would have
>>admitted that to you.
>>
>>The critical mind at work.
>
>You were talking about the "facts" Martin, not speculation, or your own
>bias. The FACTS are that Adam Curry told me the same
s case before you presume to lecture us
>>on what the facts really were.
>
>In truth, Milton's account is exactly on track with that Adam Curry told me
>directly.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Martin B. S
Either the Paris Draft or the BMW draft is the better draft and an as-yet
unwritten draft may be better than both.
Among the issues irrelevant to determining that isse are: who signed those
drafts, what an employee of WITSA told that organization's members, who
wrote the word Center in his post a
I would rather you go to the Southern District's warehouse in Kearny, NJ
and actually read the record in this case before you presume to lecture us
on what the facts really were.
At 05:13 PM 2/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> As one of the l
>The genie was let out of the bottle the day that the guy sold
>mcdonalds.com to McDonalds; the day that MTV started fighting to get
>mtv.com back from Adam Curry. Basically, it all began when the world
>started to realize that there was intellectual property and financial
>value to domain names.
t;> So, no, there are no new issues posed by expanding the TLD space. One
>>could also
>>>> posit that there are no new issues posed by creating new SLD hierachical
>>>> categories, (e.g., food.us) as long as TMOs believe that mere
>>registration of a
>>>>
onding to their TM character string, regardless
of use,
>> constitutes a violation of their rights.
>>
>> But perhaps this exchange would go somewhere constructive if you would
explain
>> what you think those "new" issues are.
>> --MM
>>
>> Martin B
The mere registration of a domain name could be actionable under theories
other than trademark law. A disgruntled employee of XYZ Corporation could
regsiter xyz.com, which might sound in trademark law, but also might be a
cause of action under various tort theories. For example, in NY state,
suc
mechanism for the balancing of the rights of the various parties involved.
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> So the topic at issue here is whether the domain name registration system
>> should be expanded without recognition of the legal rights of others - or
>> perhaps there
See the Glaxo-Wellcome case from the UK, the Payline case in France, and
the Orkin case from Canada and see if that changes your view. These rights
regard protection of the trademark right, they do not "exist solely with
regard to the USAGE of the domain name."
In any event, no one denies that t
Agreed.
At 09:41 AM 2/22/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 22-Feb-99 William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>> On 22-Feb-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> > I don't think TM owners are asking that the DNS be re-engineered. They
>> > are asking that if gTLDs are t
r for Pizza Hut to challenge the registration before any use
is made
>of it.
>--MM
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> If Mueller wants to reply, he better come with cases a Namibian court would
>> consider (and calling the One In A Million tribunal ignorant isn't normally
>> effective means of distinguishing effective precedent.
>
>
>
>
>
At 01:17 AM 2/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>Pizza Hut now has a right to all related character strings in all
>>jurisidictions, in all levels of the domain name hierarchy and regardless of
>>use or degree of confusion. Quite an astounding claim. It certainly bears no
>>relations
. You want to spout about markets, fine, but
when it comes to trademark law, you simply don't know what you are talking
about.
>
>--MM
>
>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> >>Also, in response to Martin Schwimmer:
>> >>
>> >>>In other w
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
