Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Bryant Durrell allegedly said:
> 
> 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.

There is a big difference between knowing the internet exists, even
using the internet, and knowing about the workings of DNS.  Suppose
the Publication Web Site is established by June -- how long do you
think before the general internet user will know about it?  More to 
the point, how long will it be before judges know about it?

-- 
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