RE: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]

["Hartman, Steve" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com>]

I am not sure of the point you are making. Obviously, if oreo.com is
excluded, then so should oreos.com and other non-material variants. I don't
consider the line between ihateoreos.com, on the one hand, and oreo.com and
its non-material variants to difficult to draw.

Nabisco is currently challenging about six direct hits. I don't know how
many, if any, will survive the UDRP. The federal cybersquatting statute in
large measure is an unsatisfactory solution for individuals and
corporations. Individuals usually don't have the economic stamina to fight a
corporation in court; this is simply a reality and says nothing about the
which side should own the domain name. Corporations don't want to wait for a
court to decide whether they can register a particular domain name. Court
proceedings can easily take many months; and sometimes years before the
matter is finally resolved. A quick, inexpensive mechanism benefits
corporations as much as individuals. Finally, society benefits to the extent
that the court system is relieved of time-consuming task of trying disputes
that it need not have to.

Of the substring cases involving Nabisco marks of which Nabisco is aware,
all have fallen into the "I hate/love nabisco" domain name category or the
oreocookies.com category. I have only come across a few of the former; there
have been many of the latter, but that could be because, as a lawyer for
Nabisco, those are the domain names I focus on.

The truth is that the communicative domain names ala whyihateoreo.com are
not problematic as long as Internet users are not confused or misled. At
bottom, Nabisco's products and conduct as a corporation speaks with far more
authority than a website or a non-misleading domain name.

Steve Hartman
Nabisco, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Milton Mueller [SMTP:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent:	Tuesday, December 14, 1999 12:03 AM
> To:	Martin B. Schwimmer
> Cc:	wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]
> 
> Reality check #1:
> How many cases can you cite of pirates who have registered and used
> "dead-hit"
> versions of famous names after September 1997? Of those, how many still
> hold the
> name?
> 
> Reality check #2:
> How many "dead-hit" registrations of famous names do you expect to survive
> the
> UDRP? the new cybersquatting law?
> 
> Reality check #3:
> What is the ratio of registrations that are objectionable (to TM holders)
> because
> of substrings to registrations that are objectionable to "dead-hits"?
> 
> "Martin B. Schwimmer" wrote:
> 
> > >Similarly, a concern about oreos might be reflected in a domain name
> such as
> > >oreo-lovers.org or hydrox-versus-oreo-compare.com.
> >
> > neither of which would be affected by a dead hit exclusion of oreo.
> 
> --
> 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/
>