Ms. Marilyn. Let's try this one more
time. Steve Hartman of Nabisco said,
"[The Sunrise Proposal] simply allows trademark owners the
opportunity to pre-empty speculators and cybersquatters."
I replied that cybersquatting
involves infringement of trademark rights and is actionable.*
But speculation is legal and legitimate activity. Trademark owners have no legal right to infringe on speculators' activity.
You can try to "clean it up" all you want, but the true agenda of the Trademark Lobby rings through loud and clear from Steve's statement noted above.
In fact, he continued, "On balance, the benefits of the sunrise provision outweigh free speech and hoarding concerns."
*Note for the record my objection to pre-emptive "anti-cybersquatter" DNS attachment, as legally there is no "cybersquatting" per se regarding a particular trademark and domain name, until a judge says there is. I can only conclude as I wrote earlier, that the objective of the Trademark Lobby is to:
-- Create new trademark rights to pre-empt population of the DNS.
-- Grant trademarks license to infringe on the legitimate rights of others.
-- Dismiss outright, so-called public resource issues; and
-- Discard that most elementary of American rights: free speech.
I've observed the Trademark Lobby's attempts at similar take-over activities in the toll free number arena for years (thwarted time and again by the FCC, which unlike ICANN, isn't in bed with one particular constituency, and also unlike ICANN, is a mature, knowledgeable and accountable regulatory body.)
The FCC's position on trademark rights in the numbering space should serve as a model for the Internet regarding the DNS.
Instead we are confronted without exaggeration by a taking over of the DNS; a truly malicious act of aggression and oppression against the Internet community worldwide.
("consumer protection" my ass, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... )
P.S. You write "The trademark holder has no choice but to protect their brand." Here we have no argument.
But Marilyn, you know that protection is provided legally by remedy, not by pre-emption, and that the UDRP has proven successful both as a viable alternative to litigation, and an inexpensive, rapid tool for remedy.
Which leaves your plea disingenuous, if not downright smarmy.
800 &
Dot Com News, Intelligence, Consulting - FREE Daily HeadsUp
Headlines.
"...superb real-time source..." -- "...invaluable..." --
"...indispensable..."
http://ICBTollFree.com -- http://1800TheExpert.com -- (U.S.) 1 800 The
Expert
Judith Oppenheimer -- mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
-- +1 212 684-7210
-----Original Message-----
From:
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, April
20, 2000 5:19 PM
To: 'Hartman, Steve'; 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'John Berryhill
Ph.D. J.D.';
wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to
pre-empt, or license to infringe?
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