Re: [ga] Paper: Concerns about ICANN Uniform Dispute ResolutionPolicy

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

Yes, but you choose the easy examples (involving coined or fanciful terms -- 
madeup words).

Apple Charities and Pony Initiative, should they exist as noncommercial 
entities, should be allowed to exist and not to face charges of 
cybersquatting from Apple Computer or Pony International without the computer 
company and the shoe company PROVING a prima facia case of infringement or 
dilution -- and the WIPO rules don't make them do that. 

Besides, what about the procedural point-- creating a whole new mandatory 
arbitration structure without the GA or NCDNHC input?

Kathryn Kleiman
> 
>  The post below may create a mis-impression about the treatment of
>  non-commercial use under trademark law, in part because it does not clearly
>  make a distinction between non-commercial speech ABOUT a mark (which is per
>  se protected) and non-commercial use OF a mark which would not be protected
>  if deemed to be infringing.  You cannot solicit donations under the name
>  Xerox Charities, nor can you offer the not for profit Compaq Computer
>  Initiative, without the authorization of those trademark owners.
>