At 04:10 PM 3/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
>Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It
>is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
>They do not listen to or respond to threats! They rea
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 04:10 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
>Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it.
It
>is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off
At 04:10 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
>Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with
it. It
>is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back
off.
>They do not listen to or respond to threat
At 10:54 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you 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,
At 10:54 PM 3/1/99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer 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-Bro
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
> Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It
> is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
> They do not listen to or respond to threats! Th
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
Roeland and all,
Good points here Roeland, and I concur completely. I just wish you
would not have let the cat out of the bag so to speak. >;)
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 12:52 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
> >"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would posit
At 09:19 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>"A trademark, even a registered one, is not a property right, like a
>>copyright or patent, but merely an identifier of source. Others can
>>use the same mark to identify their product, provided there is no
>>likelihood of confusion." Door Systems Inc. v
I think the best move for us to take is to just start using the
Trademarking of Private and Prospective TLDs and be done with it. It
is a silly thing to try to use qas a hammer to get ICAN to back off.
They do not listen to or respond to threats! They react to real live
action. And since this n
At 06:10 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Usually the Courts are just repeating what they learned from academia, only
>about
>40 years out of date. They'll learn. The law and economics school has had a
>tremendous impact on the case law, particularly in regulatory venues.
>--MM
>
Thank you, Dr. Muel
At 12:52 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Greg Skinner wrote:
>"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would posit that we have just found the natural process by which
>> new TLDs will have to be created. Further, as Marty, Bill, and I
>> discussed earlier on this list, all SLDs and other domains,
Usually the Courts are just repeating what they learned from academia, only about
40 years out of date. They'll learn. The law and economics school has had a
tremendous impact on the case law, particularly in regulatory venues.
--MM
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 12:19 AM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
> U
At 01:07 PM 3/1/99 +, you wrote:
>
>I don't know about US case law, but under English law trade marks most
>certainly are property. They are part of that great division of property,
>Intellectual Property. Even in the US they (like domain names) seem to
>have the key attributes of property:
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would posit that we have just found the natural process by which
> new TLDs will have to be created. Further, as Marty, Bill, and I
> discussed earlier on this list, all SLDs and other domains,
> registered within this TLD, can be protected behi
At 12:35 AM 3/1/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 01:39 AM 2/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> However, I acknowledge that ICANN is a different beastie than
>>NSI. BTW, from a tech stand-point, I already have the TLDs running
>>internally and providing service, for which I get paid. Also, the ICANN is
>>
Bill Lovell wroteAt 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>To my previous message,
>>
>>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
>>that trademarks are owned, especially if they are also trad
At 01:39 AM 2/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
However, I acknowledge that ICANN is a different beastie than
>NSI. BTW, from a tech stand-point, I already have the TLDs running
>internally and providing service, for which I get paid. Also, the ICANN is
>not the sole gate-keeper of the Internet.
>
>Uh, I'
At 12:19 AM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
Um, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which I practice
tells me that trademarks are not property, I listen, and I don't
much give a rip about what academia says.
Bill Lovell
>Bill
>You make important distinctions between the type of property right
Bill
You make important distinctions between the type of property right associated with
patents, copyrights, and trademarks. However, from the standpoint of law and
economics theory, and from the standpoint of ordinary usage, "ownership" means the
following things:
-- the right to use
-- the right
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 09:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > At 01:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> > >At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> > >>At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> > >>>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > Bill and all other Eu
At 12:29 AM 2/28/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 09:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>> At 01:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> >At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>> >>At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> >>>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>> Bill and all othe
At 12:32 AM 2/28/99 +, you wrote:
>Bill and all,
>
> Ok, this is our opinion as well. I was just trying to get some
>clarification on
>what you were saying.
>
> This also brings up another interesting point as well. If I or anyone
>were to
>trademark, say .STORe (read "dot Store") I must f
At 09:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 01:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >>At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
> >>>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
> Bill and all other EudorsPro users, under /Tools/Options/Miscellaneous,
At 01:54 PM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>>>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
Bill and all other EudorsPro users, under /Tools/Options/Miscellaneous,
check the "Automatically Expand Nicknames" box and
Bill and all,
Ok, this is our opinion as well. I was just trying to get some
clarification on
what you were saying.
This also brings up another interesting point as well. If I or anyone
were to
trademark, say .STORe (read "dot Store") I must first show it as in use in
commerce on the Inter
At 06:03 PM 2/27/99 +, you wrote:
> Than to follow your logic here if a Domain Name is trademarked, it is
>not property, yet it can be owned? Hum? Interesting logic here.
Read again. I said that a trademark neither adds to or detracts from. If
it was a domaing name (i.e., property) be
Bill and all,
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >To my previous message,
> >
> >One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
> >argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
> >that trademarks are owned, especiall
At 01:21 PM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>To my previous message,
>>>
>>>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>>>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the
At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>To my previous message,
>>
>>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
>>that trademarks are owned, espe
At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>To my previous message,
>
>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
>that trademarks are owned, especially if they are also trade marked,
>whether in co
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> At 02:05 AM 2/27/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >On 27-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >> Well, one thing came indirectly out of the trademark/DNS discussions is
> >> that if a TLD name is trademarks, as a TLD name, the root-servers dare
To my previous message,
One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
that trademarks are owned, especially if they are also trade marked,
whether in common law or registered with USPTO. It appear
William and all,
If I am not mistaken we have had this discussion way back on the
old gTLD-MoU list. I believe that answer is whether one can
Trademark a "TLD" as a "TLD "(None the less a DN). Under US Trademark
law, I don't believe that one can Trademark a "TLD" as a "TLD" or
"gTLD". This r
At 02:05 AM 2/27/99 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>On 27-Feb-99 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> Well, one thing came indirectly out of the trademark/DNS discussions is
>> that if a TLD name is trademarks, as a TLD name, the root-servers dare not
>> assign it to anyone else. If they did, it woul
35 matches
Mail list logo
