Re: [atlarge-discuss] correction RE: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com

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

The ballot is to choose the name of the organization.  One of teh five 
choices is icannatlarge.org.  Withouut regard to the outcome, that raises 
trademark issues.  If that name becomes the organization's name, and/or if 
that domain name (or icannatlarge.com) feed into some other name, that is a 
domain name issue - domain name disputes are little but a subset of broader 
trademark law.

My only point, which remains valid, is that the trademark and domain name 
issues are not as cut and dried as some have portrayed them.

At 08:56 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
> the organization name option as written on the ballot is
> InternetAtLarge.org
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Judith Oppenheimer [mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:48 PM
> > To: 'James S. Tyre'; 'Joanna Lane'
> > Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.com
> >
> >
> > James, actually, Joanna's idea (which I support) was for the
> > organization's
> > incorporated name to be InternetAtLarge, with a variety of
> > domain names,
> > including the existing icannatlarge.com, feeding into it.
> >
> > So you see, whether InternetAtLarge or another, this isn't actually a
> > domain name issue.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
> > ----------
> > Judith Oppenheimer
> > http://JudithOppenheimer.com
> > http://ICBTollFreeNews.com
> > http://WhoSells800.com
> > 212 684-7210, 1 800 The Expert
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
> > ----------
> > Visit 1-800 AFTA, http://www.1800afta.org
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------
> > ----------
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:30 PM
> > > To: Joop Teernstra; Joanna Lane
> > > Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] icannatlarge.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