Re: 60 day waiting period -- look at the facts!

[Christopher Ambler <chris@iodesign.com>]

> Keep in mind *who* one lodges a complaint with.  Under the IAHC proposal,
> the complaint is lodged with a court.  And someone who waits until the
> 59th day to file their complaint with a court, having taken no previous steps
> to raise their concern with the domain name owner, is going to find it
> difficult or impossible to talk the court into granting a preliminary
> injunction.

They why 60 days, if 59 is so obviously useless? Why not 30? Why not 10? Why
not just not at all?

> With the 60-day period being followed, a grabby trademark owner will have
> a hard time explaining why they waited until long after the 60-day period to
> gripe about the domain name.

Not at all. "Your honour, we were not made aware of this 60-day period when we
registered our trademark with the USPTO, had no way of knowing, and are just now
entering into the Internet arena with our advertising. Had the USPTO notified us
of this new requirement, we would have begun paying our trademark attorney extra
to police this as well."

> Let's state this clearly.  Stability of URLs is very, very important to
> the Internet.  More important, I suggest, than instant registry of domain
> names.  (And please recall that if somebody needs a domain name in a
> hurry, they can always simply register a third- or fourth-level domain name, and
> obtain what they want instantly.)

Except for those companies not yet on the Internet, or who want brand-name
(read: trademark) development. Those companies are going to sue, 60-day wait
or not.

Let's state this clearly. The 60-day wait will serve absolutely no purpose
whatsoever. Those who are going to sue are going to sue anyway.

--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.