Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Carl,

  From this posting it sounds as if you are a bit frustrated with 
this porblem.  I can certainly understand.  Though I do not practice
law, I do have a law degree, and as such understand how lawyers are
precieved in many sectors.

  This however really is not what I believe to be the motivation
with respect to the 60 day waiting period.  It for ALL of the postings
reguarding this subject, that I believe that as a part of the Draft,
Trademark issues and the 60 day waiting period, should not be contained.
Rather I would like to see a possition paper, drafted as an possition
statment addressing these issues.  This I believe would be more
approiate.
It would be the possition of the IACH, yet not be a part of the DNS
draft per se.  

  Your or anybody's thoughts?  

Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> At 12:58 PM 01/08/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> >Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> >>
> >> At 11:28 AM 01/08/97 -0500, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> >> >Besides, if I register a domain name and don't trademark it, aren't I
> >> >failing due diligence.
> >>
> >> Surely you are aware that in many countries it takes a year or two or more
> >> to obtain a trademark registration.
> >
> >So?  Doesn't application for trademark give you standing in court?
> 
> None whatsoever in the United States.  The same is true for a large
> fraction of the other countries of the world.  None whatsoever.
> 
> >> >If a domain name registrant wants added
> >> >protection, they can not use it for 60 days on their own.
> >>
> >> No, there's a big difference between the following:
> >>
> >> 1.  IAHC proposal in place.  Covetous trademark owner awakens to the
> >> Internet, tries to grab a domain name that is a couple of years old.  Judge
> >> laughs the trademark owner out of court, pointing out that the trademark
> >> owner hasn't offered any good excuse why it didn't speak up during the
> >> 60-day period.
> >
> >I would totally agree with you IF THE IAHC HAD ANY REGULATORY
> >AUTHORITY.  Since they are not recognized by any government as having
> >any regulatory authority, I think I could effectively(well maybe not me
> >personally) argue that a 60 day period means nothing because their is no
> >regulatory authority.
> >
> >> 2.  VW proposal in place.  Covetous trademark owner awakens to the
> >> Internet, tries to grab a domain name that is a couple of years old.
> >> Domain name owner pipes up, saying "oh, but during the first sixty days of
> >> our domain name we didn't actually use it."  Judge looks at domain name
> >> owner with puzzlement as to why something that the owner did or did not
> do, a
> >> couple of years ago, makes any difference now.  Lawsuit drags on until the
> >> domain name owner runs out of money.
> >
> >You have made MY point.  Since IAHC has NO regulatory authority, how can
> >domain holder go to court and say "Well, IAHC didn't actually let me use
> >the name for the first 60 days".  Judge looks at domain name owner with
> >puzzlement as to why something that the IAHC did or did not do, a couple
> >of years ago, makes any difference now.  Lawsuit drags on until the
> >domain name owner runs out of money.
> 
> No, I am afraid you are mistaken about this.  It does not matter whether or
> not IAHC has regulatory authority.  All that matters is what the judge
> thinks.  And (I do this for a living, not merely on TV) I know that judges
> will place substantial importance on the existence of the 60-day period and
> the reason why it was established.
> 
> I appreciate that many of the commenters in this subject have an innate
> distrust of lawyers and generally proceed under the assumption that they
> act on purely selfish motivations.  Such views are of course justified but
> they apply to everyone, not just lawyers.  But (I have said this several
> times) I am on your side.  I have repeatedly put forth the
> pro-domain-name-owner point of view in an effort to counter the
> anti-domain-name-owner points of view (NSI and some trademark owners).  If
> I am telling you that the 60-day period would be good for domain name
> owners, not bad, can you not possibly believe that I am giving my sincere
> point of view based on substantial professional experience?
> 
> >> >The ONLY way I see this as helpful is if the CORE would be willing to
> >> >defend the 60 day period in court.  Then if a registrant is challenged
> >> >after 60 days, the CORE would get involved in the suit, taking the
> >> >position that the complaintant failed to file within the specified 60
> >> >day period.
> >>
> >> There is no way, none at all, that any domain name registration authority
> >> is going to take sides in a domain name dispute.
> >
> >Again, you have made my point for me.  Any recognized regulatory body
> >ALWAYS stands behind their decisions, that's probably why they are
> >recognized.  It's pretty easy to hand down edicts from on high when you
> >don't have to back them up in court.  Step back Carl, and look again,
> >blink your eyes a few times to clear the fog.
> 
> Okay, fine, you want to alienate me?  Fine.  I'm on your side, and I am one
> of only a small number of lawyers who is on your side.  If you want to
> change that, continue as you do now and you will achieve your goal.
> 
> Carl Oppedahl

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com