Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> At 12:15 PM 12/25/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >And if ownership of a domain name does *not* constitute infringement
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >then what good does the 60 day wait do? I go get pepsico.com.  Pepsi
> >immediately sends me a letter, well within the 60 days.  I tell them
> >to go to hell -- they can pay me $600000 for the name, if they like,
> >but mere ownership of a domain name doesn't constitute infringement, 
> >so I intend to keep it...I now own something clearly valuable to 
> >Pepsi, and it's just a matter of negotiation, now.
> 
> Nope, you are mistaken.  Pepsi, owner of a unique trademark, will have no
> difficulty using the Federal Anti-Dilution Law to obtain an order directing
> you to cease and desist.  You have no negotiating power then.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Carl, all that you have been claiming for the benefits of the 60 day 
wait hinge on the law taking some notice of it.  That is a 
hypothetical.

But let me ask you another question, since you have studied this
matter quite a bit, and I hope you can give me an objective,
verifiable answer -- out of the 600,000 domain names in .com, how many
have involved some form of trademark conflict?

-- 
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