At 12:09 PM 1/23/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>At 09:11 PM 1/22/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>>At 02:20 PM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>As for Mr. Lovell's comments on NSI, I have repeatedly stated that NSI's
>>>dispute resolution proceeding works an injustice because it performs no
>>>likelihood of confusion analysis. It does not have the expertise to take
>>>advantage of the developed caselaw - we would not have had a juno.com
>>>situation if it did.
>>
>>On this issue one could not fit a single DNA molecule between the
>>opinion just stated and mine. :-)
>
>>From the spectators view, I couldn't even find room for a hydrogen
>molecule. <grin>
>
>>percentage, unless it were made up of attorneys who specialize in
>>trademark law (and even then . . . wow . . . 3 attorneys in one room?!!).
>
>I would expect that would result in at least six different legal opinions
><grin>
Probably not. Probably they'd all have the same opinion. I have not met a
single trademark attorney who has expressed anything but criticism for
NSI's policy. The International Trademark Association, which contains
probably 80% of the experienced trademark attorneys in the world, wrote a
paper saying:
... this paper proposes that the current NSI Dispute Policy be recognized
as a failure and eliminated, that domain
name disputes be left to the courts, [and] that [NSI] not participate
in the resolution of domain name disputes ...
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
