Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]

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

Darryl (AKA Dessa) and all assembly members,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From:  Behalf Of Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> |> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 7:23 PM
> |> To: ga
> |> Subject: Re: [ga] Domain names as observed [correction]
> |>
> |>
> |> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> |>
> |> > Dassa wrote:
> |> > > 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.
> |>
> |> Of course, my sentence was meant to read:
> |>
> |> In cases of theft (i.e. fraud), which is what trademark law was
> instituted to
> |> protect *against*.
>
> In the case quoted, the domain names were taken from a holder who had
> trademarks similar to the domain names in question.

  Yes and a Trademark is evidence that said Domain Names are or were
private property.

>  The decision was based
> on bad faith and the supposed intention of the defendant.

  Right again, and as such, the Trademarks granted by that defendant
were issued improperly or were used in a manner that they were not
applied for, therefore Bad Faith was claimed and acknowledged.
Hence the Defendant "Stole", by use of fraud or intent to defraud
those Domain Names in question (including harrodsbank.com,
harrodsbanking.com and harrodsamerica.com. ) by
Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd. See full text again at:
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/167543.html

>  In no way did it
> amount to the decision conveying any property rights on domain names, in
> fact the opposite as the claim was based on evidence dealing with external
> matters to the domain names.

  Incorrect in your unprofessional assessment here as well.  Such FUD
is yet another demonstration of  how misinformation and disinformation
is a purposeful attempt to confuse other participants on this forum.

>  The fact the domain names were taken from
> someone who held trademarks associated with the domain names and given to
> another party clearly indicates that domain names have no intrinsic
> property rights of their own.

  In fact the opposite is the case according the the US DOJ and international
Trade agreement.

> You will notice that all claims against
> holders of domain names involve external property rights, trademark, IP or
> bad faith claims.

IP and trademark are not external property rights at all.
See: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856918.html as yet another example...
Or even and older reference:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_85661,00.html
which clearly states that Domain Names are indeed Private Property.

>
>
> Theft is entirely different to fraud and fraud is entirely different to
> trademark infringements.  It is only confusing the issue to claim they are
> the same.

  The indeed in ALL cases are not the same.  But in other instances such
as this one under discussion, Fraud was used to steal a Famous Mark Name
for other uses.

>
>
> If domain names were indeed property as many claim, any attempts to lay
> claim to them would involve specific claims directly relating to the domain
> name and the ownership and not involve external claims of IP, trademark or
> bad faith.  Much like others can not claim my car, any books I've written
> or other property I own unless they can claim prior ownership etc.

  Harrods can and did make the claim of prior ownership in this case.

>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I would love it if domain names were actually property
> in the sense yourself and others state they are.  Unfortunately, the facts
> don't support that view.

  Incorrect again.  And again see:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_85661,00.html

>
>
> I feel the debate on if they are or are not property is unrewarding for the
> GA and a waste of time.  The courts are making those decisions.

  Indeed they are!  And again for another example see:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856918.html from the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals as one of a number of examples
that disagrees with your unprofessional assement/assumption.
(Without providing any evidence BTW).  Ergo your assumption
is just that, an assumption that does not have supporting
information or case law to support it.  I would call that
a fairly weak assumption...

>
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> 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