At 11:33 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>IMHO, this post just highlights the absurdity of all our discussion on
>the interface(s) between domain names and trademarks. From Bill
>Lovell, we have that trademarks are not property (according to the 9th
>circuit, but not necessarily according other circuits).
>>From Clare Wardle, we have that trademarks are property.
>Any day, we will get a post from someone in a civil law jurisdiction
>who will weigh in with the state of the union in their neck of the
>woods.
And I really have to agree with this. The second danger, to which I
referred earlier, is that this nitpicking between attorneys might be
taken to constitute legal advice. Consequently, to the admonition
that no one take anything seen here to be competent legal advice
(and especially anything I say, I added), I should make the further
addition that the advice of all other attorneys weighing in on this
issue should be taken with the same grain of salt. There is no
attorney/client relationship.
>
>Domain names are international in scope. Trademarks (despite the best
>efforts of many nations and years of negotiations) are not. Applying
>existing trademark law (especially the lovely uncertainty of the
>difference between Famous Marks and well-known marks) to domain names,
>except on a case-by-case basis in a court of competent jurisdiction
>just doesn't make sense.
Case in point: I read a case yesterday or whenever it was, from the
Supremes, I believe, which pointed out that even with respect to the
recognition under treaty of a trademark or service mark from a "registration"
country that has NO use requirement, use must nevertheless be shown
if the mark is to be recognized in the U. S. Reason is, without any use
somewhere, there is no mark since the Commerce Clause would not
apply, and without that the Congress cannot have acted on the issue.
>
>Sure the trademark holders have a problem. But here is not the place
>to attempt to solve it. Get laws passed, treaties signed, etc. Then
>come back and tell us what the law is (but we will probably already
>know <g>).
You got that right!
Bill Lovell
