Greg Skinner wrote:
> "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...)
> > This does not work either.
>
> Of course, if people are unwilling to compromise.
...then we have to pass laws.
Diane Cabell
http://.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, then does Firestone have a right to the use of
> > firestone.tires.com? Or should it be firestone.tire.com? Or
> > Firestone.rubber.com?
>
> I am not a lawyer. I don't know who has rights to what.
"Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, then does Firestone have a right to the use of
> firestone.tires.com? Or should it be firestone.tire.com? Or
> Firestone.rubber.com?
I am not a lawyer. I don't know who has rights to what. But if
people are willing to compromise, then no
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Cato Institute forum on domain names ...
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If "Firestone" a famous mark ? Should anybody but the tire compna
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If "Firestone" a famous mark ? Should anybody but the tire compnay get
> exclusive world wide rights to it ? What about the other Firestone
> brother that makes wine in the Santa Ynez valley - no small winery
> either. What about Roy Firestone? Wh
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 05:48:43PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
> Sombody seriously need to reign those folks in. They're simplu out
> to het some sot og lobal trademark scheme the golder fleece of the
> IP law biz.
Jeff Williams revealed...
--
Kent Crispin "
At 12:10 PM 5/6/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Mikki Barry wrote:
>
>> Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a group who feels that
>> existing laws do not offer them enough protection should not then be able
>> to circumvent that existing law through private corporations given
>> "trusteeshi
Mikki Barry wrote:
> Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a group who feels that
> existing laws do not offer them enough protection should not then be able
> to circumvent that existing law through private corporations given
> "trusteeship" over an international resource.
I think
Greg Skinner said:
>I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I am not arguing that
>"trademark interests" ought to have protection. I was merely
>speculating that they might feel existing law does not offer them
>enough protection.
Although I may have misunderstood, I still say that a g
Mikki Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if I feel that tomato growers need more protection, that's ok for
> ICANN to expand into as well? ICANN's mandate is technical, not policy
> making. Through this entire fiasco of "open, transparent and
> accountable" formation, we were told again and
"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.
greg skinner said:
>Kerry Miller wrote:
>
>> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name
>> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between
>> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled
>> between the contending parties using exis
Kerry Miller wrote:
> I believe its RFC 1591 that states that registering a domain name
> confers no legal rights to that name and that any disputes between
> parties over the rights to use a particular name are to be settled
> between the contending parties using existing legal methods. Why
13 matches
Mail list logo
