Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 04:15:08PM -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > > That wasn't quite what my point was. My point was that there is no
> > > way for ICANN to resolve competing TM claims, since there is no
> > > international trademark law that covers the issue. That is, in
> > > *principle*, ICANN cannot resolve
> >
> > That is wrong. ICANN is incorporated in California, it has NO
> > CHOICE. ICANN HAS TO abide by California and US LAW, or it can be
> > discorporated.
>
> You are talking about something different than I am. I am talking
> about ICANN's decision processes.
No Roeland is NOT talking about anything different at all. ICANN's
decision process is in part driven by the law, it must be.
>
>
> > ICANN therefore MUST resolve Trademark issues
> > according to US law.
>
> Pity you can't read. Go back and carefully examine the paragraph at
> the top of the page -- it says "there is no way for ICANN to resolve
> competing TM claims..." It doesn't say anything about how a
> California court would resolve a TM claim.
No Kent you need to go back and re-read Roelands response. He
did not say anything about Competing TM claims in response to your
comment at all.
>
>
> If a US court directs ICANN to do something, then of course ICANN
> will comply, at least until the assets are transferred to a new
> non-US corp. But we aren't talking about that.
Oh, well most countries honor US TM claims or do so under trade
agreements. In any event I think that the ICANN will find it difficult
to transfer its corporate residence outside the US.. Wishful thinking again
there Kent... Dream on...
> We are talking about
> where ICANN is resolving the issue, not a court. Furthermore, there
> is no law whatsoever that says that ICANN has to follow the dictates
> of US TM law in resolving such issues.
It does if the company that holds that TM is in the US.
> TM law would probably allow
> a civil action to be brought against ICANN, but on the other hand, a
> civil action can be brought against ICANN for a myriad of reasons.
If ICANN decided to attempt to thwart a US TM on a TLD in a
dispute situation, than they would be doing so with malice, which
implies criminal intent. SUch and intent would likely receive summary
judgment in Federal court. As such, ICANN's creditability would than
be in great doubt. ANd BTW if malice is found, which is or would almost
surely be the case in that we are discussing the potential here and now,
hence ICANN cannot claim ignorance, it would be Criminal not civil...
>
>
> > The law is quite clear on this, Crystal-clear, in fact.
>
> Perhaps you could point out to me the crystal-clear law that defines
> the relationship between TLDs and US trademarks?
It is known as the Lanham act Kent! DUHHH! See USPTO
web site for more detain. Pay particular attention to TM classes
31. 38, 9, and 41 I believe...
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
