Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>Many many dozens - that has to be at least 36 I would say. You are
>familiar with enough of the facts of 36 cases to conclude that in each of
>those cases:
>
>(1) a TM owner had no colorable cause of action; and
>(2) NSI awarded the TM owner the domain name
>(3) without compensation to the DN owner?
NSI doesn't award the TM owner the domain name, unless ordered by a court
to do so. A name is put in suspension upon production of a trademark
certificate identical (by NSI's definition, but not necessarily
character-by-character) to the domain name, when the domain registrant
cannot produce a TM that predates the challenge, and the TMO certificate
predates the domain registration.
But suspension alone can put a company out of business, as many of these
companies derive their income solely from ecommerce. NSI has invoked its
dispute policy more than 2,000 times. The record reveals that suspended
names have included generic terms (clue, donut), parody sites (peta.org),
and some flat-out inconsistencies (nasastronauts.com but not
nasaastronauts.com, registered to the saem party on the same day), and NSI
has even applied its policy to domain registrants retroactively (pike.com,
roadrunner.com). IMHO, this extra-judicial policy is onerous and
indefensible. NSI should declare a registrants" amnesty for all names that
are on hold because of this screwy dispute policy, and tell the disputants
to negotiate, capitulate, or sue but to leave NSI out of the fray. A don't
ask, don't suspend approach.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
============================ // ================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
On the Internet, // \\ no one knows you're a dog
