At 02:55 PM 1/24/99 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>
>Agreed, so long as the arbitration mechanism is not mandatory (meaning the
>courts are always available) and several alternatives are available
>eventually if not immediately.
Interference proceedings are not "arbitration" in the strictest sense, but
rather in the nature of inter partes administrative law proceedings. The
courts would still be available
>
>We definitely do have to get out of the trap of assuming that domain names,
>by definition, are trademarks and are automatically commercial. Much of
>the Internet is still for communication purposes and not for e-commerce or
>other commercial uses. These non commercial uses will continue and grow,
>right along with e-commerce and commercial use. Those domain names must be
>protected as well.
>
I have briefed these points to the 9th Circuit in Interstellar Starship
Services
v. Epix, Inc. There is a lot of good case law which says that, so time
will tell.
(I've good stuff on all that, but I can't post it here since I have to
ensure that my
client gets the benefit of it first.)
Bill Lovell
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
