Hello up,
Tuesday, March 13, 2001, 7:38:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> IANAL, but...if you look at recent cases like this, you'll see that
> "exclusive use of that word" is not needed here...it would if Jack had any
> kind...even common law trade use of that name. But the fact that he deals
> in domains and offered to sell it to them and is not using it for any
> business that pertains to the word (which, in many states would create a
> common law trademark), works heavily against him.
This is a creation of ICANN's flawed UDRP.
The law does not require him to use the domain in order to keep it.
The burden is on the complainant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is violating their trademark rights.
Speculation in domain names and reselling them in the aftermarket is
not a crime, nor should it be. Speculation in an industry is a sign
that the industry is healthy.
If someone came to me and asked me if they could buy Userfriendly.com,
I'd always consider selling it, even though that is not my purpose,
nor was it ever my purpose, since registering it. If they asked me
for a price, I'd give them a number that I would consider worthwhile
enough to me to make me consider giving up the domain. Below a
certain number, it wouldn't be worth considering their offer, since I
see it as worth than that to me to keep it and continue to use it, now
and in the future.
But because I give them a price at which I would consider selling it,
does not mean, under the law, that I registered it, or having been
using it, in bad faith.
The ICANN UDRP, however, does not see it that way, at least not in the
practical application looking at the "decisions" made by plaintiff
leaning attorneys who are contracted as panelists, and selected by the
plaintiffs, to hear and decide these cases.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
