Re: 60 day thought

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> At 02:57 AM 12/22/96 +0100, Paul Svensson wrote:
> >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> But with the 60-day stuff, the judge will know that if a text match was the
> problem, then the trademark owner ought to have spoken up back during the
> 60 days.  If the 60 days is a long time ago, then the trademark owner is
> going to have to focus on *what the domain name owner is doing*.  And the
> judge will focus on it.  And if the domain name owner is doing computer
> consulting and the trademark is for children's games, the judge will laugh
> the trademark owner out of court.  

Carl, *all* the advantages you cite here and elsewhere would be met
just as well if the phrase "60 day waiting period" were replaced by
the phrase "60 day publication period".  The legal establishment does
not care about the functioning of DNS, it cares about effective notice
being available.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F