[ga] Re: [wg-c] Branded TLDs

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:23:04PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> Please correct me if I am wrong. We now have a massive inequity codified
> as administrative law. A registry must be vulnerable to trademark
> holders yet can not hold a trademark itself. Do you realize the scenario
> here?
> 
> NSI operates .COM for 10 years, Joe Scumbag attorney calls up one day
> and says that they registered a trademark, called .COM, and NSI has to
> cough up 30% of their revenue as a trademark license payment, or JS will
> file, and get, an injunction telling NSI to cease and desist use of the
> .COM TLD because it violates JS's trademark.

It can't possibly violates JS's trademark, because by the same rule,
JS can't get a trademark that covers domain registration, either. 
Hence, NSI's use does not infringe, and I imagine that NSI's 
legendary legal staff would make short work of any such claim.

> NSI could not file TM on
> COM because of this silly ruling.
> 
> This smells like some very old fish. It is not good news. Whomever wrote
> this was not thinking clearly.

An unconsious self-reference, perhaps?  :-)

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain