[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] RE: [wg-c] Branded TLDs
If and ONLY if, that ruling can be made to stick. There are no absolutes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 10:50 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Martin B. Schwimmer; email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Branded TLDs
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:23:04PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > Please correct me if I am wrong. We now have a massive
> inequity codified
> > as administrative law. A registry must be vulnerable to trademark
> > holders yet can not hold a trademark itself. Do you realize
> the scenario
> > here?
> > NSI operates .COM for 10 years, Joe Scumbag attorney calls
> up one day
> > and says that they registered a trademark, called .COM, and
> NSI has to
> > cough up 30% of their revenue as a trademark license
> payment, or JS will
> > file, and get, an injunction telling NSI to cease and
> desist use of the
> > .COM TLD because it violates JS's trademark.
> It can't possibly violates JS's trademark, because by the same rule,
> JS can't get a trademark that covers domain registration, either.
> Hence, NSI's use does not infringe, and I imagine that NSI's
> legendary legal staff would make short work of any such claim.
> > NSI could not file TM on
> > COM because of this silly ruling.
> > This smells like some very old fish. It is not good news.
> Whomever wrote
> > this was not thinking clearly.
> An unconsious self-reference, perhaps? :-)
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain