[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.

Then don't.


Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html