RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 27-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> Actually, this argument, of Walsh's, is somewhat irrelevant. USPTO did
> reverse position (which Wlash failed to contest) and this constitutes a risk
> that prior trademarks, even common law marks, were effected by the decision
> and could claim a grandfather clause exemption from the new rulings.

BS.  Common law marks are not effected, the rules specifically cover only
registered marks, and common law marks always have to be challenged in court. 
There is no automatic presumption that their self claimed trademark would hold
up.

The fact remains that those arguing that TLDs were trademarkable said that
there had been prior precedent to support their position, and indeed there is
not.

Now, .WEB is claiming protection, but that has not been tested by review of the
USPTO (at least if so it is not in their twice a week updated online database,
they've done a great job this last year in keeping it up to date).  

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE43tca8zLmV94Pz+IRAnUFAKCPsQAbpJafbnVe45tEkIaVos92wwCfZ8u9
oQ4wxsxCPRveRSrjZ8fbY70=
=uIx1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----