[re-threaded] Please let's not muck with the subject line.
At 07:50 PM 2/10/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Bill:
>You are right and Crispin, as usual, is not only wrong, but manipulatively
>wrong. WIPO's proposals have nothing to do with trademark law. They are an
>attempt to exploit the bottleneck power of ICANN's monopoly over the name
>space to give TM holders far more powerful rights, and a form of prior
>restraint, over the use of domain names. They would create a new form of
>administrative law that has no basis in any national government'
>legislature.
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have
>> been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark
>> law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in
>> the context of existing law.
>
>The slipperiness of this is obvious. What does it mean to be "done in the
>context of existing law??" Does that mean that it is legal, illegal,
>extralegal? Is there any thing that is NOT "in the context of" existing law?
>The man is simply playing with words.
___________________________________________________
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!
