Re: 60 day waiting period

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 08:45 AM 01/13/97 -0600, Craig A. Finseth wrote:

>As I have read more postings to this list, I see the 60 day waiting
>period as more and more of a problem.
>
>First, to a startup, 60 days is _forever_.  Imagine getting everything
>ready, yet having to sit around and twiddle thumbs WHILE SPENDING
>MONEY AT A FURIOUS PACE.  Remember, this hold affects EVERYTHING these
>days: not only product, but magazine ads, business cards, letterhead, etc.

Keep in mind that all one must do is the simple step of sending in the
application 60 days in advance of need.  How difficult is that?

>And this occurs at a time when a new company is particularly vulnerable.
>
>I see a new form of sabotage: watch for new registrations, and
>challenge everything that might affect you.  In many cases, all it
>takes is a nice letter from an existing trademarker holder inquiring
>as to whether there might be a problem (not even a threat of action)
>and the new venture will be stillborn.  

That can happen right now.  A trademark holder can check Whois and write a
letter if they please.  If a mere letter causes the venture to be
stillborn, that can happen right now.

Under the IAHC proposal, such a letter means nothing.  The only thing that
means anything is if the trademark owner actually goes to court, and
manages to satisfy the standards of that court with respect to the grant of
preliminary injunctive relief, and obtains a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction.

>Or, at best, forced to undergo
>a major change at a time when the new company must focus on more
>important issues.

A mere letter would not force such a thing.

Frankly, for a new venture it is a blessing to have such early warning that
someone has a gripe about a domain name.  Then the major change happens at
a time when little has been invested in the particular proposed domain name.