[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?

To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 23:01:26 +0900
In-Reply-To: <199907302247.PAA24261@agamemnon.home.com>
References: <Your message of "Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:25:49 EDT." <3.0.2.32.19990730182549.00cf45b4@pop.interport.net>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

At 15:47 30-07-99 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:

>.org may have commercial interests.  They'd have to move.

AAA, but the last time I ran a .com whois in NSI, I got a message from NSI, 
"The .org and .net are not taken either,  protect your interests, register 
all three".

That practice should be prevented.  Talk about using up the namespace....!

BobC




-----------------------------------------
"A fast nickle beats a slow dime."
"Arizona Bill" Doyle (Jane's Dad)
He understood the "time value of money".

References:
- Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
  - From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>
- Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
  - From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread