Re: Conflict resolution?

["Gert Blij" <gert@itst.co.za>]

> From: G. Gervaise Davis III <ggd@iplawyers.com>
> Date: Thursday, November 21, 1996 07:10
> 
> On 19 Nov 96 at 11:58, Gert Blij wrote:
> 
> > From: Aveek Datta <MoNoLiTH+@CMU.EDU>
> > Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 11:18
> > 
> > Domain names were  always supposed to confer no trademark status.
> 
> I can't agree with this, neither with the "first come, first serve"
> argument. The present conflict resolution document very specifically
> refers to the right of trademark owners to _their_ domain name and has
> a whole lot of other great rules and regulations. The problem is that
> they are only words and are not enforceable, other than for the two
> parties to go to court (in America) to slug it out.
> 
> Gert
> 
> >>>>Gert and others -
> 
> You are, respectfully, both wrong.  The problem is that a domain name 
> is not automatically a trademark use 
[etc]

Then why does NSI put this in its Conflict Resolution Policy document:

"
5.  [etc]
At the  same time, Registrant acknowledges that Network Solutions
may be presented with information that a Domain Name registered
by Registrant violates the legal rights of a third party.  Such
information includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the
second-level Domain Name (i.e., not including .COM, .ORG, .NET,
.EDU, or .GOV) is identical to a valid and subsisting foreign or
United States federal Registration of a trademark or service
mark on the Principal Register that is in full force and effect
and owned by another person or entity ("Complainant"):
"

Gert