Re: [wg-b] Second Circuit on First Amendment Analysis of DomainNames

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 09:57 30.01.00 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>Sumption is not part of the calss of cases we are talking about because it
>is not a fmaous marks case. Sumption registered avery.net, not
>plannedparenthood.net or chanel.net.  Avery Dennison is distinguished from
>Planned Parenthood by the holding that (1) neither AVERY or DENNISON are
>famous marks and (2) Sumpton was not using the names in their sense as
>trademarks but as surnames.

We're back at the list again.
Once the list of names declared famous is available for inspection, it's 
possible to discuss basing exclusionary procedures on them.

While we still don't know what the content of the list is, we have no idea 
whether it makes sense to apply this rule or not.

If AVERY makes the list, according to the criteria, this court decision 
means that we can't base an exclusion on it.
If PLANNED PARENTHOOD doesn't make the list, the opposite logic applies; 
the other court decision means that we can't think the problem is solved by 
creating the list.

The very first question is who defines the list.

               Harald A


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no