Re: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLDStraw poll)

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

What in this post is more relevant to the theoretical trademark status of
.com than Section 2(e) of the Lanham Act?


At 04:10 PM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> 
>   If the steward is entrusted with 
> something of value and he converts it to his own personal 
>
> It's a religion when you deal with the issues with the
> shrill zealousness frequently seen on these lists -
> with a dialogue which admits and accommodates only one
> correct order and one set of views.
> 
> 
> IMO, NSI's assertion that it owns .com and/or that it has any 
> property rights in the associated contacts database is a theft.
> The fact that the NSF has not done anything about it does
> not diminish the gravity of the wrong.
>
>  NSI received one of 5,772 NSF
> computer science research (CISE) project awards over the 
> past 15 years, receiving less than $ 4 million of 
>  NSI's award was for one 
>  
> 
> All of the 820 diverse awardees retained their project assets, 
> not only including enormously valuable intellectual property, 
> but also in several cases, hundreds of millions of dollars 
> of physical assets and billions in continuing business arrangements, 
> as part of an explicit initiative to transfer these assets
>  If you want to demand return
> of assets, you might start at the top of the award list and
>  NSI ranks 84th.
> 
> 
> 
> --tony  

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @