[wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?

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

In my judgment speculation in the trademarks of others unnecessarily drives
up the cost of doing business on the Internet and reduces the efficiency of
the Internet, with no countervailing benefits.

A sunrise provision has the potential of appreciably reducing the number of
cybersquatting opportunities and, in so doing, reducing the amount of
cybersquatter-related litigation.

On balance, this benefits of the sunrise provision outweigh free speech and
hoarding concerns.

Steve Hartman

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Judith Oppenheimer [SMTP:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:50 PM
> To:	Hartman, Steve; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject:	opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?
> Importance:	High
> 
> Steve Hartman, Nabisco, says,
> 
> 
> "[The Sunrise Proposal] simply allows trademark owners the opportunity to
> pre-empty speculators and cybersquatters."
> 
> Cybersquatting involves infringement of trademark rights and is
> actionable.
> 
> Speculating is legal and legitimate activity.  Trademark owners have no
> legal right to infringe on speculators' activity.
> 
> 
> Judith Oppenheimer