Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] Analysis of "Domain Definition Poll" - Part I.

[FRupp@aol.com]

I agree...only their Name...no infringement entitlement / UDRP complaints due 
to sub strings that include part(s) or all of their name / Mark due to the 
commonness of strings of letters in words...or words within words...

Forrester Rupp

In a message dated 1/18/01 8:52:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
igoldste@mum.neric.org writes:


> My one concern for TM claims is that holders should not be entitled to 
> UDRP infringment on a subset of their Mark.  For example, if someone has 
> registered "United Computer", while they (imho) should be protected for 
> "unitedcomputer.tld" the TM should not grant them any privilege on either 
> "united.tld" or "computer.tld" since the words united and computer are 
> both generic terms and are not registerd to them.
>
> --Ira Goldstein
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 FRupp@aol.com wrote:
>
> > IMHO 
> > 
> > If DNs are subject to UDRP for TM infringments or dilution...then...the 
> Act 
> > of Registration of a DN (could) constitute First Use in Business of a 
> Common 
> > Mark, and and also create IP rights, thus it becomes Property (of a type 
> to 
> > be determined)...and then it is up to the Registrant to go thru the 
> process 
> > of Trademarking the Use of the DN for his Business.