Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

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

James and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

James S. Tyre wrote:

> At 06:05 PM 9/23/2002 -0700, Bruce Young wrote:
> >Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> >|  One such example is icannwatch.  There are several others.
> >|  SO for ICANN to do so now would not get much consideration
> >|  in a court of law an their atty's know that...
> >
> >Failure to defend their trademark today doesn't prevent them from doing so
> >in the future!  For all you know Joe Sims has a "cease and desist" letter
> >ready to drop on us as soon as the election is over!
>
> Bruce,
>
> If you were me - be thankful you're not ;-) - you might ask Jeff to explain
> why and how, under the trademark statutes and cases, the existence of
> ICANNwatch has more than passing relevance to the ICANNatlarge issue.

  I already knew.  But it is obvious by now that Bruce did not.  Which
is why earlier I suggested to him he do his homework.  He failed the
test unfortunately...

>
>
> You might even give him a leg up by assuming, for the sake of discussion,
> that there had been a court case between ICANN and ICANNWatch and that
> ICANNWatch had won.

  Yes.  And why was that James?  Do you have the case file handy.
I do, but it is too long to post here...

>  Even with that assumption, you might ask him to impart
> his knowledge of how such a decision would have more than a passing impact
> on the ICANNatlarge issue.

  By now I would have assumed that you had assumed that I already knew
as at the time I commented on that very case.  But again Bruce didn't,
nor did any of the panel members it seems... Again the lack of homework
shows clearly...

>
>
> And surely you should ask him to explain how the legal issue rarely
> involves just the simple question of whether someone is using another's TM,
> but rather how, and in what context.

  Exactly right.  And I have now eluded 7 times to that very point...

> And from that, certainly a discussion
> should follow of the similarities or differences in the use of "ICANN" by
> ICANNwatch on the one hand, ICANNatlarge on the other.

  Yes and the similarities are too plain to need much discussion for the
knowledgeable...  Of course I assume you already know this James..  >;)
The differences are so insignificant as to be nearly unrelated to
possible consideration for a TM filing of any sort.  Hence again why
by this time, ICANN has likely not done so...  A UDRP complaint would
be much more likely.  But I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon,
if ever.

>
>
> However, you're not me.

  Oh how true!  But oh how unfortunate.  >;)

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

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