Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[durrell@innocence.com (Bryant Durrell)]

Kent Crispin writes:
> Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> > The answer in the case of #2 is, again there is no need to convince a judge
> > of anything like that.  The party that needs to convince the judge of
> > something is the trademark owner, who has the difficult task of explaining
> > why, if mere ownership of a domain name counts as infringement, didn't the
> > tradmark owner do something back during the 60-day period?  The honest
> > trademark owner will not even bother to sue, knowing that it doesn't have a
> > good answer to this question.
> 
> Eh? The honest trademark owner would say "How was I supposed to know 
> about the 60 day period? -- I didn't know domain names existed back 
> then."

At this point, I suspect that defense will get about as far as saying
"How was I supposed to know there might be a magazine with that name?
I didn't know magazines existed back then."

I.e., I have trouble imagining a businessman making a serious claim 
that he or she didn't know about the Internet in 1996.

-- 
Bryant Durrell (sysadmin, cynic, coyote) | "well, it seems doable so we should
durrell@innocence.com / durrell@bofh.net |  do it.  if we can't then we should
http://www.innocence.com/~durrell        |  get no biscuits."  -- tim@meer.net