At 02:34 AM 2/17/99 , William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>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?
Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars.
