Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>]

Just to add grist to the mill - or, perhaps, fuel to the fire ;-) - today, 
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court for 
the western U.S., including California) decided in _Interstellar Starship 
Services v. Epix, Inc._ that the mere fact that a trademark is incorporated 
into the domain name of another is not, by itself, enough to establish 
liability for infringement (or ACPA cybersquatting), more is required.

Other federal circuit courts have held the same (the rulings from one 
circuit are not binding on the others), as have some UDRP arbitrations.

I respectfully decline to offer a legal opinion on the hypothetical case of 
ICANN v. icannatlarge.com/org, but the discussion so far has been pretty 
black and white.  The law isn't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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

"Unflattering though it may be, the truth is that
lawyers in the American system are officially fungible."
	--Streit v. Covington & Crowe (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 441, 448


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