At 10:19 AM 2/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
>>>What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that?
>>
>>Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars.
>
>Which is exactly why pseudo.org may lose their domain name. The
>non-infringing non-commercial domain name holder can't afford tens of
>thousands of dollars. The reverse domain name hijackers have very little
>downside. All they need do is claim infringement (even though there is NO
>analysis in the US that supports the claim, and they know it) and he domain
>name holder's only recourse is to spend tens of thousands in legal fees
>that generally aren't shifted back to the reverse hijacker in court.
As has been stated several times on this list, this analysis is simply
inaccurate. It ignores the Declaratory Judgment Act, Rule 11 sanctions,
the existence of legal aid, and the ability to represent onself (pro se).
As long as we are minimizing legitimate beefs by measuring them against the
entire population, will Ms. Barry and Mr. Oppedahl please identify the
number of cases which fit the following:
An infringement claim brought under Section 32 of the Lanham Act against
the owner of a domain name where plaintiff had no colorable claim.
>
>WIPO's policy wouldn't be any better. And people wonder why individuals
>and small business domain name holders need representation.
>
>
>
>
