At 12:09 PM 1/23/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
At 09:11 PM 1/22/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:20 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
As for Mr. Lovell's comments on NSI, I have repeatedly stated that NSI's
dispute resolution proceeding works an injustice because it performs no
likelihood of
At 09:11 PM 1/22/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
At 02:20 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
As for Mr. Lovell's comments on NSI, I have repeatedly stated that NSI's
dispute resolution proceeding works an injustice because it performs no
likelihood of confusion analysis. It does not have the expertise
At 09:45 PM 1/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
Case law in the USA, not in the entire world. As I recall, the law varies a
bit
from country to country, no?
--MM
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
I would argue that the case law for likelihood of confusion analysis is
completely fleshed out. An entry level
The fact that Mr. Lovell did not have my original post (or more
importnatly, the series of posts I was responding to) may have led him to
beleive that we are less in agreement than we are:
In summary:
This thread began with a domain name owner complaining that leaving dispute
resolution to full
there is a lot of talk about the "public interest" on these lists. The
public interest here has come to mean the rights of DN holders to not get
sued by the (pause for demonization effect) TM interests.
That is rather disingenuous IMHO. Public interest to me means that the
right of freedom of
And further, ADR is available now, at the consent of both parties. Any
MANDATED ADR, where neither party can elect not to be a part of the ADR, is a
violation of their rights.
There is no need to mandate ADR, provisions for it exist on our laws already.
The New York Stock Exchange's
At 02:12 PM 1/18/99 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
Vint Cerf was right in his contention that trademark issues should NOT be a
part of the DNS discussions. DNS discussions should be completed along
technical lines, and the court system should be deciding issues of
infringement. I know that if INTA
