Re: DEC vs AltaVista

On 05/29/97, Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Jamie Powers <jamie[_at_]srgpe.com> wrote:
> >
> > In March, 1996 DEC actually licensed the term from them (which I
> > believe DEC may now regret because it may bolster Alta Vista's claim
> > of trademark ownership). The March 1996 license was part of Digital's
> > acquisition of all trademark rights in the term "Alta Vista" from Alta
> > Vista. This "Sale and leaseback" deal worked for a long time - if you
> > deem the time ink dries to be long. As noted, Digital now claims the
> > company breached the license agreement. You used to be able to visit
> > the tiny Alta Vista home page which actually discussed the relationship
> > with Digital. However, the site can't be accessed any longer.
>
> I thought that Digital's position was that they had purchased the
> name from them, but that Alta Vista continued to use it.

A clarification and a correction in reply to Bruce Hayden's comment.   

First, the Altavista still exists (www.altavista.com); I just couldn't bring it up the few times I recently tried. Notably, it mentions nothing of the DEC lawsuit.

Second, DEC did purchase the name and simultaneously authorized Altavista to continue using the term in limited lines - a sale and leaseback transaction. It is the alleged breach of the license back to Altavista from Digital which is the subject of Digital's claims.

Jamie Powers
<jamie[_at_]srgpe.com> Received on Tue Jun 03 1997 - 17:06:11 GMT