[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-b] RE: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought



     
Most of the people we deal with have not even consulted an attorney.  When
the 
attorney gets involved, we ALWAYS get a response.

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
Author:  "Judith Oppenheimer" <SMTP:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com> at GCOHUB
Date:    9/27/99 1:31 PM


No one ignores a cease and desist letter unless their attorney finds it
doesn't 
merit a response.
     
Judith
     
"DEUTSCH, SARAH B." wrote:
     
>      If the cost is cheap, that's great.  What do the registrars have to 
>      say?  The neutral warning to me is only of some value if it is
>      triggered BEFORE the registration actually occurs.  Even if you have 
>      no intent to infringe, the warning will not by itself cause people to
>      give up the name.  We find that in the vast majority of our cases,
our 
>      cease and desist letters are ignored.  So, I'm not overly optimistic
>      that the warning by itself would change any behavior. 
>
>      For the cybersquatters, I agree that the warning would be ignored 
>      regardless.
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
> Author:  "d3nnis" <SMTP:d3nnis@mciworld.com> at GCOHUB 
> Date:    9/25/99 2:06 AM
>
> ----------
> >      I think the warning system is certainly worth exploring as a
> >      supplement -- not a replacement -- for the proactive exclusion.
Has 
> >      anyone vetted the idea with the registrars and determined the costs

> or
> >      technical feasibility of implementing such as system?   I think the

> >      registrars would reject the idea because it would require them to
> slow
> >      down their systems by adding an additional step in the automated
> >      registration process in which all domain name registration requests

> >      are referred to a centralized database, which would then do a check

> >      and spew back the warning.
>
> Thanks for the interesting answer. 
>
> I should have been clearer in my question:  my curiosity concerns how 
> you feel about the  effectiveness of neutral warnings.
>
> I tend to think that a neutral warning given to a registrant who has
> no intentions of infringing is likely to ensure that infringement doesn't 
> occur ... and to magnify the impact of any cease and desist letter that
> might be issued by a trademark holder afterwards. 
>
> For someone planning to engage in infringement, the warning would
> clearly have no impact, I realize.  Your agreement/disagreement on this 
> point would be interesting to hear.
>
> Parenthetically, I tend to disagree with you on the cost factor (though 
> I'm no expert).   A neutral warning system wouldseem  by definition to 
> be far cheaper andmore automated than an exclusion mechanism if one
> were forced to choose between the two, IMHO. 
>
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis Schaefer
>
>
>
>
> >
> >      A key question is when the warning would take place -- before or 
> after
> >      the applicant has submitted its application and fee.  If the 
> applicant
> >      receives the warning after the automated process -- the warning is 
> >      virtually useless.  After paying the bucks, few domain name holders

> >      would voluntarily relinquish their domain name registrations.  They
> >      would still wait for the trademark owner to come after them and
sue. 
> >
> >      The proactive exclusion helps protect their essential famous mark.
I 
>
> >      am open to the idea of the pre-registration warning system, if 
> crafted
> >      properly, as a way to protect all the cybersquatting on variations
of 
>
> >      famous marks.
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> > _________________________________
> > Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
> > Author:  "d3nnis" <SMTP:d3nnis@mciworld.com> at GCOHUB 
> > Date:    9/23/99 8:40 AM
> >
> >
> > Sarah --
> >
> > I would value hearing your viewpoint on the use of  neutral 
> > warning system as discussed a couple days ago.
> >
> > My apologies if you already have done so:  mailbox problems 
> > have caused me to lose mail recently.
> >
> > I understand you prefer to have an exclusion process.  My questions are:

> > in the absence of an exclusion process, would you favor a warning
system? 
> >
> > And, with or without an exclusion process, do you feel that a warning 
> system
> >
> > is practicable?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > >      The latest draft of the UDRP is fatally flawed.  It provides no 
> real
> > >      remedy for trademark owners and in my opinion will not be used 
> unless
> >
> > >      drastic changes are made.  Contrary to the statement made below, 
> the
> > >      latest draft of the policy does not give the trademark owner the 
> > right
> > >      to challenge any registration that is confusingly similar -- the 
> > >      standard under US trademark law.  Trademark owners must prove,
> among
> > >      other hurdles, that the domain name was registered PRIMARILY for 
> the
> > >      purpose of disrupting business of a COMPETITOR; or that the
domain 
> > >      name holder attempted to attract for FINANCIAL GAIN, users to its

> > site
> > >      by INTENTIONALLY creating confusion by using a mark that is 
> > >      SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL to the trademark or service mark.
> > >
> > >      As you can see, this test is totally unacceptable.  If this is
the 
> > >      policy, no one will use it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> > > _________________________________
> > > Subject: Re: (wg-b) food for thought
> > > Author:  "Milton Mueller" <SMTP:mueller@syr.edu> at GCOHUB 
> > > Date:    9/23/99 2:10 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > This discussion is proceeding as if the alternative to famous marks 
> > > exclusions is pure court litigation. That is not correct.
> > >
> > > We cannot lose sight of the fact that a Uniform Dispute Resolution 
> Policy,
> > > which ICANN is in the process of adopting, will give famous mark
holders 
> > the
> > >
> > > following:
> > >
> > > a) accurate and complete contact info of all registrants
> > > b) right to identify and challenge any registration that is identical
to 
>
> > or
> > > "confusingly" similar to their mark in a process that is much less 
> > expensive
> > >
> > > and faster than the courts.
> > >
> > > I don't see what exclusion adds to that process, except additional 
> > expense,
> > > bureaucracy, and opportunities for abuse of domain name holders. 
> > >
> > > Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Famous marks, because they are famous, also have the wherewithall to

> > > > defend their marks. Start-up enterprises do not have this, but they 
> also
> >
> > > > do not yet have a mark, or brand, to defend yet. 
> > >
> > > --
> > > m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u 
> > > syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ 
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
     
--
Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210 
mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com 
Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html 
President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com