Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 05:29 p.m. 20/09/2002 -0700, James S. Tyre wrote:
> 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.
And who wants to incorporate icannatlarge in the U.S.?


--Joop


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