At 06:13 AM 2/2/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Mikki,
>
>Another observation might be that the much maligned and
>disliked NSI dispute policy might actually discourage
>cybersqatters from going after trademarked names because
>they know the mark holders can invoke the policy. If this
>is true, it could possibly be concluded that cybersquatters
>are focusing more on non-trademarked names.
>
>Chuck
When NSI made its decision to cut off the email service provider Juno
Online (owner of the domain name "juno.com") and its half a million email
customers, because Juno Electric (a maker of light fixtures) asked NSI to
do so, was this because NSI considered Juno Online to be guilty of "going
after a trademarked name" or because NSI considered Juno Online to be
"going after a non-trademarked name"?
Or is this simply one of those cases where NSI's policy failed completely,
and wrongfully lumped Juno Online (and its half a million email customers)
in with the cypersquatters?
The latter, of course.
Will NSI ever manage to be honest enough to admit that in many, many cases
NSI's policy simply reaches the result that is the *opposite* of the
legally correct result?
It is disingenuous for NSI to claim, as it does here through Mr. Gomes,
that its policy has anything to do with the good of the Internet community
or even the good of the trademark community. If NSI were truly motivated
by a desire to do what is good and right, it would scrap its policy and
stop making decisions to cut off companies like Juno Online and its half a
million innocent customers. If NSI were truly motivated even by a desire
to do the bidding of the trademark community, it would follow INTA's advice
and scrap its flawed policy.
A federal judge said it best:
"NSI's standard domain name registration agreement contains a domain
name dispute policy, but the policy has not
proven effective in resolving domain name conflicts."
"It is clear beyond question that the Policy's sole purpose is to
protect NSI. Indeed, as Panavision itself stated in its
opposition to defendant NSI's motion to dismiss: '... NSI has
repeatedly represented that it is out to protect no interests
but its own.'"
Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 945 F. Supp. 1296; 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1908
(C.D. Cal. 1996).
