Re: [wg-review] Re: dndef, 9

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I have not had the time to pull the actual briefing and opinion on this case yet
but if it is true?
As found at theregister.co.uk

Dell squashes cybersquatter
By: Drew Cullen
Posted: 05/02/2001 at 09:50 GMT

Dell has succeeded in stopping a Korean computer equipment vendor trading from
the Web address DELLKOREA.com.

On February 1, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled
that DELLKOREA.COM violated the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of
1999.

The court shut down the Web site and ordered "all right, title, and interest in
and to the domain name registration for DELLKOREA.COM be permanently transferred
to
Dell."

Dell said its business is growing in Korea and that the cybersquatter had
created confusion in the minds of customers. ®

The Judge got the property right but those poor registrars.  How can they charge
for renewals if the judge orders it permanently transferred.

Yes, Virginia we do need a definition, yesterday.


Phil King wrote:

> Domain Names are intellectual property. They in fact are owned by the
> individual
> domain name owner.  The term domain name holder is nonsensical, except in
> the sense
> of using a piece of property. In that they are intellectual properties they
> do not
> exist until created by persons. Once they exist they are owned.  There is no
> public
> domain name. ICANN is charged with the assignment of title to the domain
> names.
> Title to a domain name is held for periods of time and is not owned in the
> model of
> a fee simple. When there is a dispute over title to a Domain name the
> rightful
> owner is determined by a series of principals as set forth in the UDRP.  One
> can
> acquire title through squatting if no one with a more valid claim challenges
> that
> title. The laws of each country dictate the precise hierarchy of claims to
> title
> within their own sphere of influence.
>
> I could be convinced to change my opinion here, but not by rhetorical
> arguments of
> what has gone before, because what has gone before lacks coherent logic and
> legitimacy.
>
> We would not be defining it had it been well defined before.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric Webster
> -------------------------
>
> Agree on created DN's--I created "yofelipe" (my dot com) and it is not in
> any dictionary in that form, it hasn't had a conflict as my handle anywhere
> (so far) on the net.  Yet this is not within the intent of previous
> trademark laws.  I may trademark it, but it is more in the idea of
> copywrite, and yet it still doesn't fall in the traditional area of written
> work either.  The discussion continues...
>
> thank you
>
> Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
> Phil King
> Butte America
> (The Richest Hill On Earth)
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html