Again, Mr Schwimmer, I ask you, are there issues with these names? Do the
companies involve see them as actual trademark infringements or just annoyances?
If they see them as trademark infringements, they are obligated to enforce
their marks and take them to court. If not, they have no bearing on anything
being discussed.
On 02-Mar-99 Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> microsoftnetwork.com.
>
> crateandbarrel.com.
>
> harrods.com.
>
> jsainsbury.com
>
> micros0ft.com.
>
> panaflex.com.
>
> In a debate that revolves around whether there is a problem, to hide all of
> these under the rubric of "speculation" is disengenuous. I'm sure that
> Congress was left with no doubt that the third party registration of
> cratebandbarrel.com was left out of your definition of infringement.
>
>
>
> At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >
> >> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
> >> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
> >> knowledge of the facts (and law) involved. I mean, how many final court
> >> decisions did he use in his study (not that final court decisions give the
> >> definitive facts but they do give the definitive law).
> >
> >We're all still waiting for you to contest a single one of those
> >classifications.Is Pokey.org a string conflict as I defined it, or not? How
> >about zippo.com?
> >How many final court decisions did we use? All of them that were available.
> >
> >By the way, all knowledge of "facts" is incomplete.
> >--MM
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01-Mar-99
Time: 16:25:32
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
