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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I agree with Steve's comments.  If someone is speculating in the trademarks
of others, versus speculating in names not yet registered, or trademarked,
the trademark holder has no choice but to protect their brand.  We can't
merely sit by and allow infringements to occur.  Mechanisms which can
prevent litigation should be viewed positively, since the need to engage in
litigation will only delay e-commerce, add in unnecessary costs, and
benefits no one. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hartman, Steve [mailto:HartmanS@Nabisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:45 PM
To: 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?


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