RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

But, it is not entirely clear that the ruling would stand up in court
becasue they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs and SLDs. What are
they going to do, recind those status assignments?

They simple fact that the history shows severe waffling, on the part of
USPTO, makes the outcome of such a case very questionable. This also
reflects poorly on those running the USPTO <sigh>. It also make whatever
decisions that they make, in this context, subject to appeals, making USPTO
less authoritative than the courts in this regard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> William X. Walsh
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:03 PM
> To: Christopher Ambler
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; Kendall Dawson
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > Please add:
> >
> > 1. Proposed initial TLD
> > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose
> > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD
> >
> > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to
> > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional
> > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm
>
> I believe the trademark office has already indicated
> guidelines to deny TLD's
> trademark status.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE43ZoV8zLmV94Pz+IRAmjUAJ4hqojvSV88b3h9qtuEMfhaQBjodACfUEHT
> QfKrx475JsdWlqD8IeqZDa0=
> =MWiU
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>