At 09:13 PM 2/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Actually the GOPED case is a good illustration, where idiosync.com/goped
>was a non-infringing use of go-ped. JOHN DOE'S PARTS as the name on the
>shop awning, WE SELL PORSCHE PARTS in the window is ok, PORSCHE PARTS as
>the name on the shop awning is probably not ok, as it probably suggests a
>connection or endorsement. By analogy, www.porscheparts.com suggests a
>relationship to porsche in a way that www.johndoe.com/porscheparts does not.
>
And don't forget that even a word within the address may not infringe:
the domain name "epix.com" was ruled not to infringe the registered
trademark of Epix, Inc. The District Court decision, now on appeal
in the Ninth Circuit, can be read at:
http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/epix.html
I was lead attorney for the plaintiff-counterclaim defendants. I am
told that this is the first case which actually says that one must
follow trademark law in terms of likelihood of confusion before
deciding on an infringement claim against a domain name holder
Bill Lovell
http://cerebalaw.com
