Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re: alternate rootzone

[Bill Lovell]

At 03:00 AM 2/27/99 -0800, you wrote:
>To my previous message,
>
>One particular point I might add, this puts a pretty serious dent in the
>argument that domain names aren't owned. They are owned in the same sense
>that trademarks are owned, especially if they are also trade marked,
>whether in common law or registered with USPTO. It appears that domain
>names are owned after all.

Indeed, even more so.  The case law says that trademarks are NOT property.
Their purpose is to benefit the consuming public, not the trademark "owner."

Bill Lovell