At 07:47 AM 2/17/99 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
Actually, as is already a matter of public record, in ISS v. Epix, Inc.
the ISS bill for costs and fees in District Court -- and that in prevailing
on a Motion for Summary Judgment without a trial -- was around
$86,000, not including the cost of the attorney fee litigation itself. With
a trial it would easily have hit 6 figures.
Bill Lovell
