----- Original Message -----
From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> > >
> > > But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
> > > not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
> > > who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
> > > users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't
> > > be able to pay the speculator).
> >
> >So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define
what is a
> >legitimate use and what is not?
>
> Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know,
> and I don't think it really matters too much precisely what the
> definition is. We drive on the right side of the road. They drive
> on the left side in other places.
If you don't define "use" any more than putting up a web page, then most
cybersquatters will simply put up a blank page to fulfil the requirement of
"use". This doesn't seem to solve the problem of cybersquatting.
> In any case, haven't there been cases already decided that made this
> kind of distinction? Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
> down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to sell?
> While there are complex issues of judgement and law here, that is why
> we have courts and juries, isn't it?
There are plenty of cases evicting cybersquatters from domain registrations
that are identical to (and lately also misspelled versions of) well-known
trademarks or other protected names. I haven't heard of any cybersquatter
who has been evicted from registering non-protected names.
> Why not one-domain-per-customer?
Works for me.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund
Boston
