Re: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochetti Transfer Letter)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  Of course you are quite correct in you reading of the article to which
I originally posted and Darryl's (AKA Dessa) either misinterpretation
or purposefully spreading of misinformation regarding this article
(with contained court recorded statements and principals) regarding
the PROPERTY assessment of the said Domain Names in question
in this case.

  Perhaps Darryl (AKA Dessa) is in need of some education in his
reading comprehension?  I am sure that in his area of domicile there
are remedial reading comprehension courses he could avail himself
of to improve his reading comprehension.  I for one, hope that this
is his problem, rather than the alternative I mention above.

The article again is located here:  http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167543.html

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Dassa wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, it is doubtful if the original writer of the post to the GA
> > read the article as it clearly supports the case that domain names are NOT
> > property.
>
> It does no such thing.  In point of fact, it is definitely another
> precedent-setting example of courts finding for domains as PROPERTY... In this
> particular case, it's just not the property of the original registrant due to
> their "bad faith" intent.  After all, the article states:
>
> "Harrods attorneys attempted to argue that they shouldn't be forced to
> demonstrate "bad faith" in order to recover the names, but the judge rejected
> that argument. Harrods won despite that setback since they were able to prove
> bad faith on the part of Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd."
>
> The telling statement: "the judge rejected that argument":  Harrod's had to
> come up with the evidence to prove their rights had been wilfully violated;
> whatever that evidence may have been, it was sufficient under the condition of
> "bad faith" to forfeit entitlement of thedomain to the compainant.
> Nonetheless, the implied meaning of the "bad faith" stipulation is to inhibit
> monopolistic attempts to curtail use of a name(s) for established and
> legitimate purposes.
>
> > As with most things legal, it is a murky field, we must be guided by
> > precedents and all I have seen indicate domain names are not property.
> > Until such time domain names are given the status of property in the
> > courts, any arguments in this forum are unproductive.
>
> Darryl, would you mind producing the precedents you are referring to?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html