[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

At 10:13 PM 9/22/2002 -0700, Bruce Young wrote:

Norbert Klein wrote:


|  Of course if the vote on the name should result in a name change of the
|  group of people who have gathered under the name of ICANNatlarge
|  at our present
|  web site - then we have voted ourselves out from the position we have at
|  present - rightly acknowledged so far also by ICANN.

ICANN acknowlegdes us because they seen no need to do otherwise while we are
small and limited in influence.  If we become large and our influence
increases, I suspect that will likely change.

Perhaps more important, ICANN had a need to look "good" to DoC while the MoU still was an open issue. Now that DoC has decided to renew it, does ICANN have the same need or motivation?

Trademark rights can be lost through non-enforcement - "trampoline" is one of many famous examples ("aspirin" is the most famous, but that's a special case) - however, going back t the debut of icannatlarge.com, not nearly enough time has passed for that to be a clear-winner defense should ICANN sue.

As I've said before, I decline expressly to give a legal opinion on who would win this hypothetical dispute. But both as a lawyer who does a fair amount of TM work and (as Karl's lawyer) one of a very small set of folks who actually have beaten ICANN in court, I reiterate that this is not a black and white issue, it is far more gray than most posters have portrayed it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de