At 02:16 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>While TMs are the big money thing here, there are other rights to
>>names, as well. For example, I have a right to use the name
>>"Crispin", in certain contexts. There are many others with a similar
>>right to the name. It is not possible to prioritize among us, so
>>first come first serve is a reasonable allocation strategy. But
>>someone who goes out and registers 10,000 common surnames for the
>>sole purpose of reselling them has less of a right to the name than I
>>do. If there were some business that used "Crispin" as a trademark,
>>I would say that they fall into the same FCFS pool that I and all my
>>(metaphorical) relatives belong to -- we all have a legitimate claim
>>to use the name. The speculator does not.
>
>I can sympathize if you're talking about somebody who just
>grabbed a bunch of names and is seling them for a pretty
>penny, but if they're selling something like an email
>service, that is, they're a reseller, are you saying
>thats bad ?
We'll soon know. You're discussing the Avery Dennison v. Sumpton
case, which was argued before the Ninth Circuit on June 8, 1999. I
would say that the Sumpton attorney did a pretty good job; I was
there on another case.
Bill Lovell
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
>
