Re: Re[2]: IAHC Proposal (Attacks Thereon)

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 06:09 PM 01/13/97 -0800, you wrote:

>Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:

>[...]
>
>> And in any event, the number of domain names is indeed a fair measure of
>> the size of the problem.  Domain name owners fall into two categories - the
>> ones who are are at risk of loss of the domain name and happen to be aware
>> of it, and the ones that are at risk of loss of the domain name and happen
>> not to be aware of it.  (There is a miniscule third category of domain name
>> owners who are not at significant risk, but it is small enough to be
>> ignored.)  You are apparently in the second category, and incorrectly think
>> you are in the third category.
>
>No, I *know* I am in the third category, since "Songbird" is a trademark 
>I own (actually, a service mark).

Well, let's check the facts.  You have a pending trademark application, but
not a registered trademark.  It is for the following services:  "custom
design of web pages web-site host".

With NSI's policy, you have nothing at all.  Only a registered trademark
would protect you, and you don't have that.

Even ignoring the NSI policy, consider this:  you claim a date of first use
in February of 1995.  For all you know, someone else has superior rights to
you, maybe someone who began using the mark in January of 1995.

I assure you, you are in the second category, not the third.

>> It is a rude awakening when you get that nasty letter from NSI, or a nasty
>> letter from a trademark owner.  You have evidently not had that awakening.
>
>Nope.

Yet your awakeining could happen.  You could get an NSI letter tomorrow,
and you would be as vulnerable as any of several hundred thousand domain
names.  You could get a cease-and-desist letter from some trademark owner
tomorrow, and you would be as vulnerable as any of several hundred thousand
domain names.  It hasn't happened, but it could.  Your merely pending
trademark application is little or no defense.

>> >Sally used the term "pirates" for these people.  I was following her 
>> >terminology. 
>> 
>> No, she did not.
>
>It would be really helpful if you would simmer down, think for a 
>few seconds, and perhaps check your facts.
>
>To quote her letter:
>
>	Another way to spin the numbers would be 
>	to start with the 800,000 figure, take 
>	away the deliberate "pirates" (some 
>	estimates I have seen put that number as 
>	high as 100,000),...
>
>[snip]

Nowhere in the quoted portion, nor in any other part of her posting, did
she label as a "pirate" the people I was calling "these people", namely the
domain name owner who isn't infringing anyone's trademark and is using some
non-unique word as the domain name.  She refers only to "deliberate
'pirates'".  I am afraid you haven't proven your point.