>Dennis
----------
> Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 05:30:57
> From: 109irb81drr1
> To: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> Subject: Re: [IDNO:371] Re: Domain name disputes victims selfhelp group.
>
> Michael and Mikki -- I really appreciated this informative exchange.
>
> I could rattle off a jillion questions to someone with your legal knowledge...
> but obviously that's not why
> you're here. Could I ask a question that is probably uppermost in the minds
> of people who have had
> trademark dispute problems that they can't afford to litigate.
>
> That question is: "Do you think that NSI is going to be reined in by the
> courts eventually -- perhaps by being ruled a state actor? Or do you think
> the reverse is possible: that legitimation of harsher standards at the
> international level may ease pressure on NSI?"
>
> Thanks again for a fascinating exchange. Hope you have more of them!
>
>
> >Dennis
>
> ----------
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Mikki Barry wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Weitzel has found what many of us have been fighting since 1995 and
> > > the inception of the NSI dispute policy. Individuals and small business
> > > interests are being stomped by trademark holders who feel that ANY use of
> a
> > > character string resembling their trademark is criminal and must be
> > > stopped. The WIPO policy memorializes this, and ICANN's wish to expand
> the
> >
> > Please cite evidence for this statement. I do not believe it correctly
> > characterizes the WIPO final report (it may correctly characterize RFC 3,
> > but that is a different issue). On the contrary, while there are major
> > flaws in the Final Report, one of its strengths is that it recognizes that
> > there are many legitimate interests that must be protected other than
> > trademarks. This is a substantial difference from its predecessor.
> >
> > See generally http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf
> >
> > > WIPO policies from "just" cybersquatting to include ALL commercial domain
> > > name disputes is VERY telling of their motivations. Of course, I'm
> >
> > Here we agree. But this is my point. We must not confuse the Final
> > Report, which minus the Famous Names (ch. 4) and with a few tweaks here
> > and there may become a deal one can live with, with this other idea to
> > "expand" it -- there is a big difference between the two.
> >
> > > assuming here that "commercial" means that one party is a commercial
> > > entity. This would serve to bring the vast majority of domain name
> > > disputes under the mandatory WIPO policy, which serves both larger
> business
> > > interests AND WIPO.
> > >
> >
> > It would depend what the terms of the ADR were, but one should certainly
> > approach this proposed broadening with great suspicion.
> >
> > > The DNRC web site has a few tips on it for those fighting a US trademark
> > > holder, including asking for re-examination of the trademark due to the
> > > trademark holder's misuse of the mark. The law is clear. Registration
> > > alone is NOT infringement. The lawyers who write the cease and desist
> >
> > This is true in the US. Whether it is true abroad is disputed.
> >
> > > letters well know that. Use in a class that is not trademarked is ALSO
> not
> > > infringement. The lawyers know that as well. In many cases, they are
> >
> > [....]
> > --
> > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
> > --> It's hot here. <--
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send
> > a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz.
> > For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/
>
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/