Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Bruce Young wrote:

> Norbert Klein wrote:
>
> |  It is not that "Other Web sites are using the ICANN name as part of their
> |  online identity" - the ICANN web site enumerating the different
> |  "at large"
> |  structures mentiones us as the only world wide structure with
> |  the name of our
> |  present Web site.
>
> My sole point was that, just because ICANN hasn't chosen to persue its legal
> rights regarding its trademarked name is no guarantee that they won't do so
> in the future.

  ICANN will not do so.  If it does as I stated earlier and John B. correctly
indicated indirectly, they will look pretty silly in the preliminary hearing.
Hence ICANN will not do so.  Second, on a finer legal point ICANN
only holds the TM on "ICANN" not "ICANNATLARGE" ...

  You are showing here that 1.) You misread and misinterpreted John's
comments and statements.  2.) You know very little about TM law,
legal procedure and practice in TM law, 3.) Have not done your own
legal research...

>
>
> |  Why is this point not taken up in our debate more clearly? What is wrong
> |  with this very clear fact?
>
> Nothing.  And in a protracted legal battle we could likely prove our
> historical right to the name.

  This would be presented in the prelim hearing.  No protraction involved.
Have you ever been challenged on a TM Bruce?  I think not.  Well I have.
And this statement is just nonsense.

> But I for one don't have the "deep pockets"
> to fund such a battle, do you?  Do all of us put together have the resources
> to fight such a battle?  So why do so?
>
> |  This situation belongs, for me, to the world of FACTS.
>
> Yes.  And the fact is, regarding their name, ICANN has all the rights and
> the deep pockets to defend them if they choose.  So why intentionally put
> ourselves in a position to allow them to do so?

  We are not doing so..  So what is your point?  ICANNATLARGE
and ICANN are two entirely different things in TM law.  ICANN
does not have first use of ICANNATLARGE.

>
>
> |  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.

  TM cases and law do not work that way Bruce...

>
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon USA
> bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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