Re: Open letter to Kelsey Grammer: the Internet is not a trademark-free zone

On 11/13/98, Kerry L. Konrad <k_konrad[_at_]stblaw.com> wrote:
>
> Responding to Rich Wiggins re: the use of Kelsey Grammer's name as a
> domain name, I believe that NSI, not Internic, would be the entity that
> would have to reassign the name, and under their dispute resolution
> procedure (to which registrants must contractually adhere to obtain a
> domain name) it is essential that the party disputing a prior
> registration have a registered trademark, registered by some national
> authority (which is why in the Roadrunner case one of the parties went
> off to Morocco, where they apparently issue registrations very fast,
> to obtain a registration and therefore obtain standing to invoke the
> dispute procedure).

The "winner" of an NSI challenge does not obtain possession of the domain name. What happens is that the domain name gets put "on hold" forever, or until a judge orders otherwise.

> But there may be another avenue, suggested by the Panavision v.
> Toeppen case, for direct action against the domain name "hijackers".
> This of course involves cost too, probably more than the "hijackers"
> would want for ransom.

See "Remedies in Domain Name Lawsuits":

   http://www.patents.com/pubs/jmls.sht

Carl Oppedahl
<carl[_at_]oppedahl.com> Received on Sat Nov 14 1998 - 14:30:18 GMT