Jean-Michel Becar a écrit:
>
> > 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.
>
> BTW That's the case in
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm picking on RG here, because I don't mean
to. I think his comments are always interesting and very frequently useful.
This one, however, seems to exemplify a common misunderstanding of the WIPO
proposal that I would like to correct. While the WIPO proposal offe
> A land-rush pursuant to previously-existing rights. So it's first come
> first serve, unless it isn't.
Trademark holders have no "previously-existing rights" in the domain name
space.
Rather, they are trying to create *new* rights at the expense of others
who happened to learn about the In
> 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.
> >Overall I submit that it is better let those who aren't prudence op
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.
Bad analogy. Your house is, by definition, yours. A character string
bel
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 16:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
>
>
> I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set
> forth below that
> if you didn't lock your house and somebody
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > So if Willy can demonstrate under existing laws that there is
> > a violation
> > to his right of publicity, common law trademark, that the other use is
> > false advertising or interferes with a prospective advantage,
> > or is unfair
>
> Probably not in the US, but we surely need the same legislation to apply
> worldwide.
> I would like to be sure that the willybrown case is treated in the same way
> as jacquesdupont or mariorossi or fritzmeier or azizjamal, wherever the
> plaintiff, defendant and Registry are located.
> And t
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> So if Willy can demonstrate under existing laws that there is
> a violation
> to his right of publicity, common law trademark, that the other use is
> false advertising or interferes with a prospective advantage,
> or is unfair
> competion, then fine.
>
> It appears th
> maybe, maybe not. I don't know if Brown would prevail on those theories -
It certainly seems to me that my internal sense of justice is pretty well
defined by those existing theories.
I would hope that the answers we are looking for are "justice", not
"commercial advantage over non-commerial
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
>Ah! Nice to see a little humor here for a change! But we should
>be careful: they may line up the same list of contributors as did
>ICANN.
>
>Bill Lovell
Then they'll be over 1/2 million in the hole for legal fees alone. Can't
have that :-)
At 07:48 PM 8/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>No argument from me. I've been trying to convince INTA for years
>>(obviously with very limited success ). Someone please tell WIPO
>>so we can all move on to something else?
>
>Tried to tell WIPO, but they don't have an alternate funding scheme in
>operat
>No argument from me. I've been trying to convince INTA for years
>(obviously with very limited success ). Someone please tell WIPO
>so we can all move on to something else?
Tried to tell WIPO, but they don't have an alternate funding scheme in
operation yet.
Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> At 04:37 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> Willie Brown possibly has superior rights to williebrown.com,
> >> williebrownjr.com and damayor.com vis a vis Andy Hasse because Mr. Hasse
> >> appears to have obtained domain names likely to be associated with Willie
> >> B
At 04:37 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> Willie Brown possibly has superior rights to williebrown.com,
>> williebrownjr.com and damayor.com vis a vis Andy Hasse because Mr. Hasse
>> appears to have obtained domain names likely to be associated with Willie
>> Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, po
> Willie Brown possibly has superior rights to williebrown.com,
> williebrownjr.com and damayor.com vis a vis Andy Hasse because Mr. Hasse
> appears to have obtained domain names likely to be associated with Willie
> Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, possibly in a way calculated to harm
> Mayor
Martin and all,
Very good and mostly accurate analysis in this instance.
But now enter the ICANN "Accreditation Policy". Does Williesucks.com
or Willisbrwonsucks.com for instance constitute an "Abusive" DN?
In that the ICANN has not accurately defined what "Abusive" as in the
context of a D
He doesn't have to have superior rights via a vis everyone else in the
world in this particular matter - he has to have superior rigths vis a vis
defendant. The thought that plaintiff has to have the best rights in the
world to a name is a fundamental misunderstanding of intellectual property
law
> "williebrown.com, williebrownjr.com, damayor.com
He's only "Willie" to his friends. The rest of us have to call him
William.
So what do we reserve to his personal use, his given name, his last name,
his nicknames?
I guess Willy Brown and George W. Bush now have something in common --
they d
Martin and all,
As a matter of fact there are two Willie Brown's that are mayors
in the state of texas, and one that is Williw Brown Jr. as well...
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> Did you read the article?
>
> If you were talking about brown.com (or even williebrown.com in another
> context) I m
Patrick and all,
I have got to say, this is a good question?
Patrick Greenwell 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
> >
> >
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> Did you read the article?
Indeed I did.
> If you were talking about brown.com (or even williebrown.com in another
> context) I might agree with you except the article states that the names
> taken were:
>
> "williebrown.com, williebrownjr.com,
Did you read the article?
If you were talking about brown.com (or even williebrown.com in another
context) I might agree with you except the article states that the names
taken were:
"williebrown.com, williebrownjr.com, damayor.com, frankjordan.com,
jordanformayor.com -- and even williesucks.com
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
>
>An opportunistic cybersquatter who holds key domain names in
>the race for San Francis
27 matches
Mail list logo
