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

[Roeland M.J. Meyer]

At 11:57 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Bill Lovell wrote:
>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."

Okay,  so the dent goes the *other* way. I always thought that, as the
holder of a registered trademark, I "owned" that mark. In what way do I not
own it?
___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer - 
e-mail:                                      mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone:                                hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages:             http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site:                           http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________ 
                       KISS ... gotta love it!