On 17-Feb-99 Bill Lovell wrote:
> >I don't think it changes their right to SUE, but NSI's policy permits them
> >to
> >attempt to get NSI to place the domain on hold without any pending legal
> >action, requiring the domain name holder to sue to get his domain name back.
> >
> >A very bad policy, shifting the burden of proof.
> >
> As I noted earlier, it is not the burden of proof that is shifted -- the
> owner of the
> trademark registration must still prove infringement -- but the burden of
> going
> forward with the evidence, i.e., in this case of filing a protective
> lawsuit seeking a
> Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement. It is that burden that stops most
> of the "Joes" that one of us was mentioning earlier from being able to
> retain
> their domain names.
Well, considering IANAL, my wording wasn't too off base.
But thanks for the clarification.
What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that?
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17-Feb-99
Time: 01:32:51
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
