The mere registration of a domain name could be actionable under theories
other than trademark law. A disgruntled employee of XYZ Corporation could
regsiter xyz.com, which might sound in trademark law, but also might be a
cause of action under various tort theories. For example, in NY state,
such a fact pattern might be actionable as a prima facie tort or under
corporate opportunity doctrine.
I'm not suggesting that a DN admistrative tribunal be empowered to adopt
any theory from any municipality from anywhere on the planet. I'm just
giving examples that the generalizations that mere registration without
more (btw there is virtually never a mere registration) is or is not
actionable are not universally correct.
At 12:07 PM 2/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>We're departing a bit from the relevant trademark concepts here. Yes, to
>register a name could be considered "use," but from the standpoint of
>application of trademark protection, the operative concept is "use in
commerce."
>This means that the domain name must be used as an identifier in conjunction
>with the sale of goods and services. The court in Panavision v. Toeppen
stated
>"registration of a trademark as a domain name, without more, is not a
commercial
>use of the trademark, and therefore is not within the prohibitions of the
>[Dilution] Act."
>
>--MM
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> If what you say is true, then my opinion, this is simply a case where
>> the law has not caught up with the facts. Clearly, blocking someone
>> else from using a name is a use in itself.
>
>
>
>
>
