On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:05:14 -0400, John Gaskill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 6/30/98, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:49:39 -0400, John Gaskill wrote:
>>
>>>Holding a domain name for the purpose of reselling at a profit, and
>>>not using the domain as a site URL is certainly engaging in commerce.
>>>If you buy fish, freeze them and advertise that you have "frozen fish,"
>>>even if the advertising is only being listed in a directory under "frozen
>fish
>>>for sale" - you are engaged in commerce whether you like it or not,
>>>regardless of how you describe it
>>>(even if the fish are only "trading fish" - old finance joke).
>
>> But not necessarily commerce that is infringing on the registered mark.
>
>If the sole purpose of registering a domain name is to deny
>a lawful trademark holder of the use of that name the result
>is an infringement.
If the sole purpose of me buying property is to deny you use of that
desirable property, am I guilty of a crime?
Spare me.
>IMHO this is why the courts have repeatedly ruled against
>DN speculators who try to tie up names based on registered
>marks.
>
>The courts will continue to hammer out the details of this
>subject as the internet evolves.
>
>It is interesting to note that this subject is always good
>for a lot of traffic on the list.
>
Well if anything it proves Crispin's assertion that the law is not
fleshed out enough in the area of domain names, and hence that
mandatory arbitration should not even be a consideration at this time.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
