I agree with Chuck here. There are many companies that are using names
which are not yet trade marked, for whatever reason. No one else can
trademark them because of prior use, as evidenced by the Linux case.
Torvalds now holds the Linux trademark, even though he didn't register it
originally. It was awarded out of a court settlement when some scum-bag
tried to blackmail the entire Linux community. Linux was in prior use and
the "prior use" section of the PTO application was demonstrated to be
false, when "no prior use" was claimed there, by said scum-bag.
Trademarks can not be usurped, in law, even if they are not registered.
At 11:50 AM 2/2/99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I would say yes. Cybersquating restricted to trademarked
>names only? I think not. There are some very desirable
>names that are too generic to trademark but they could still
>have high value. Maybe my definition of cybersquating is
>broader than most.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mikki Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:50 AM
>To: IFWP Discussion List
>Subject: RE: [ifwp] NSI Domain Name Dispute Stats
>
>
>>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.
>
>Possible, yes, but can one truly "cybersquat" if the name
>isn't trademarked?
>
>
>
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
