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

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

Sotiris and all assembly members,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> > Hello Sotiris,
> > >> Can you cite any
> > >> examples where known recognised property can be taken from the owner due to
> > >> some evidence of "bad faith".
> >
> > > In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was instituted to
> > > protect.
> >
> > Wrong.  This is the biggest stretch I've seen on this list so far on
> > this subject.
> >
> > The DNS is a naming service.  The defendant was using the service in a
> > fashion which violated the trademark protections extended to the
> > plaintiff under the law.  A trademark does not mean that the defendant
> > "owns" everything that contains their string, there was no theft
> > involved.
>
> Fraud *is* a type of theft William.  Trademark law was instituted to protect
> against FRAUD.

  Indeed you are quite right Sotiris.  WXW evidently has not read the
Lanham Act very closely.  Perhaps he should.

  DOJ also has some excellent links that provide additional information
regarding this subject area as do a number of other legal informational
Web sites to which I have provided URL's to this forum on a number
of occasions.

>
>
> > Courts have already ruled on this Sotiris. While those decisions are
> > not binding in every jurisdiction, they do set strong precedents.
>
> Please produce a list of what you consider "strong precedents".

  WXW is right in that courts have already ruled on a number of occasions
in this subject area.  Unfortunately for WXW the vast majority of those
rulings were clear, as is the DOJ that a Domain Name is Property.

>
>
> > The Harrods case does nothing to advance the concept of domain names
> > being property.  Not by ANY reasonable stretch.
>
> Forgive me for not ascribing to your specific standards of REASON, William.

  No forgiveness is necessary or even rudimentary warranted in this instance,
as WXW's expertise and knowledge base is quite limited in this area.
It is obvious that his reasoning is therefore tainted or of questionable value
as a result.  However it is obvious to me and our legal staff that You Sotiris,
have at least done you homework.  Well done!

>  All
> I'm haring from you is the same thing over and over again.  Where are your
> REASONINGS?  Please produce the evidence of which you speak.

  WXW is not much for showing any evidence for his "Reasonings" in
most instances, this one not withstanding.

>
>
> > Get a real attorney to tell me otherwise, one who has actually READ
> > the case, and has a basis in IP and domain law.
>
> Unlike the both of us, huh William?

  What is interesting in WXW's comment in response is not only that he
has not shown any evidence to substantiate his "Reasonings" but is
attempting to discredit a posted court decision made by competent
council and a Judge.

>
>
> :-)
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>

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