Re: Implications of NSI "Skunkworks" Ruling

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

Karl and all,

Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> >   Well, well, well.  I see that this article and the judges decision
> > seems to point up what I have said all alotn with respect to
> > Trademark's and Domain names.
> 
> > Duane Little wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just run across this article:
> > >
> > > Court shields NSI from trademark suits
> > > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2c4%2c16504%2c00.html
> > >
> > >                 "In a decision with wide implications for the ongoing
> > >                 dispute over how far trademarks extend into
> > >                 cyberspace, a federal judge has ruled that Network
> > >                 Solutions (NSOL) is immune from most
> > >                 infringement claims." ...
> 
> This reminds me of when I was a law student.  I saw a newspaper article
> about a case, thought it meant that the Supreme Court was overturning a
> major precedent.  But an hour in the law library told me that I still had
> a lot to learn about reading opinions in cases.
> 
> Anyway... the snippet, to me, indicates only that somewhere in the
> opinion, the judge felt that NSI, as an impartial registry, is immune from
> claims that it is infringing somebody's trademark.

  It certianly looks that way.  And this may be significant as it
may be incumbant on other such cases.  I am not going as far to
say that it is a precident type of case.  But maybe close.
> 
> (I added the word impartial, because I don't know whether this case even
> considered NSI's "flawed policy" [Sorry, Carl, I just couldn't resist
> using your phrase. ;-)

  A court record may be reveling with respect to NSI's policy
in these matters from this case.  
> 
> That does not mean that this was what the case decided, it could have just
> been an ancillary statement, ober dicta (oh, my aching law latin!).
> 
> And even if it was part of the logical supporting the judgement, it only
> means that the registrar is safe, not that trademark laws apply or do not
> apply to conflicting domain name registrations.

  This is one interpratation certianly.  But I don't think the one 
intended.  If it was, than the plintif was either poorly represented,
or the judge was a bit overberring with respect to legal arguments and
evidance perposed for presentation on the plintifs behalf.
> 
> Indeed this snippet reflects the situation I believe we all want -- to
> have the registrars be simply bystanders as the actual contestants over a
> name fight it out among themselves at their own expense.

  Possibly.  But now the registries are a bit better armed with this
case as refrence.
> 
>                 --karl--

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. (Soon to be INEG. INC) Stay tunned! 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu