Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[David Collier-Brown <davecb@suncan.Sun.COM>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> This doesn't seem to make a case for a 60 day wait.  The grabber would
> simply hold on to the names through the 60 days.  Buick, for example,
> might send a threatening letter, to which the name-broker would reply
> -- "not to worry, I don't intend to sell cars." 

Except that this example was a non-name-broker who really **does** sell
cars.  Buick probably should have Guido deliver their cease-and-decist
letter (:-))


   Ok, let's  assume instead that I registered all those names, with no 
intention to do more than operate web sites...


>                                                 The trademark holder
> is still in the bind that it may very well be much cheaper to pay the
> name-broker than lawyers and court costs.

	Yes, but what does that buy them?  Ib .com, or in .tm.int,
they're done.  But in .on.ca, they still have to do .pq.fr, .az.us
and so on (and on).  Buic would find out where .web was and anem .web
and I for trasemark infringement, with the intention of making sure
no-one else in that jurisdiction would try that trick again!
	And Buick France would sue .web.pq.fr (:-))

	I think the willingness to sue a name-broker will be
independant of delay periods.  The other questions about
the efficacy of the period, however, stand...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb