[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Older registrations
At 01:11 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>That's right. And IANA made claims as well, none of which countered
>our claims. Interesting, as that was the heart of our complaint.
Pretty weak heart, given the clear, direct and dismissive content in the
judge's ruling. What a surprise that you then withdrew the case:
> What's most interesting about the breach of contract/estoppel
> claim is that the claim made is that there was a contract entered into,
> or that the Defendant should be estopped from denying that a contract was
> entered into with an entity that the Plaintiff claims has no authority to
> act. And in drawing that conclusion, I don't mean to oversimplify and
> sound cute about the inconsistency, but there's a real internal
> inconsistency in the breach of contract position and again, the failure
> to establish the elements of a contract.
> The second category of claims really has to do with the unfair
> competition. There we have the claim of Image Online that they have a
> proprietary and protectable interest in dot web.
> I find the evidence insufficient to support either factually,
> or as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has estab- lished that it has
> protectable proprietary interest in the term -- or the word -- term "dot
> web," considering the nature of the interweb and the usage of the term,
> vis a vis, the interweb -- the Internet.
> Since we're doing just fine
>now, I have no need to really get into it with you.
Dave Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html