Probably $295, not $75. You only get the $220 back if the "respondent" pays
to fight you (and loses), which is very unlikely if they don't have a valid
trademark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: .info Whois is back up
> At 8/7/01 2:20 AM, Taco Scargo wrote:
>
> >If Afilias is not going to 'police' this kind of fraudulent approach,
well,
> >why not open up the registry right from the start. I expect that at least
> >80% of the names registered in the Sunrise period is 'fraudulent' or at
> >least not valid.
>
> Agreed. In a random sample, most of the ones I looked up indicated some
> kind of monkey business.
>
> For example, take a look at "hosting.info". The trademark is listed as
> "registrar reserved" -- it looks like eNom grabbed it for themselves
> without having a trademark on it.
>
> Or "vacation.info". The trademark date is listed as "2001-07-30" (a
> simple check would have rejected that as too late) and the trademark
> number is listed as "none"(!).
>
> Or "holiday.info" and "mp3.info": both grabbed by a company that's
> clearly a domain speculator. I'm guessing "New-Top-Domain ltd." probably
> doesn't actually have a trademark on both those words.
>
> This is annoying. Didn't the Afilias people realize this was going to
> happen? The idea that the system was set up with no verification, no
> penalty for lying, and an actual disincentive for anyone to challenge
> others who untruthfully claimed trademark rights on generic words, is
> mind-boggling.
>
> The policy should have been that anyone who files a challenge and wins
> gets the domain. THAT would have been a disincentive to lying, because
> people would file challenges. But why should I spend $75 to free
> "vacation.info" so that someone else (who doesn't have a trademark on it,
> either) can get it?
>
> Grrrr.
>
> --
> Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
