>From: "Lockett, Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: dnsproc-en <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [dnsproc-en] Re: [IFWP] Re: Re[2]: Domain dispute hits earth
>Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:14:33 -0600
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
>
>
>> > >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.
>>
> [Lockett, Nick]
> Wasn't this the McDonalds line of thinking just before the McLibel
>case.
> viz - they're only 2 little people - they can't afford lawyers
>
> ....they couldn't
> ...........they did it themselves, litigants in person, they created
>McSpotlight (www.mcspotlight.com?)
> they took on the might of McDonalds, they obtained
>really damaging material on McDonalds in discovery and
> they broke the record for the longest Libel case in
>British History.
>
> .......Time a few domain holders decided to fight it themselves.
><grin>
> - those who have done so within the UK have only
>been the most blatent of pirates so they wouldn't have won
>anyway
>
> Nick Lockett
> Sidley & Austin
>
>
>
--
"How gratifying for once to know... that those above
will serve those down below" - S. Todd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
