Roger,
Did you say, "I don't see anything unjust..." That's my point. You just don't
see it. Marks are filed JUST to get domains. Sex.com was only an inspiration
here. Want to know more, look it up.
More evil on www.evil.biz
Best, Loren
"Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk@queernet.org> wrote:
Loren Stocker wrote:
>
>Time-line>>>>
>1997: New Domains First Proposed
>1999: Wired News carries story of Sex.Com's extraordinary value
>2000: Sex filed as trademark, #2306348
>2001: Sex.Info awarded to off-shore venture during Sunrise
>2003: Roger doesn't see how this can happen;)
>
And when was the trademark on "sex" *granted*? How long did that take?
Of course, of the sex.com folks were too stupid to file to protect their
mark, *and* too stupid to watch the filings and fight the registration
with dfemonstrated prior use, they deserve it.
I don't see anything unjust about the offshore company being awarded
that domain if they fully registered a mark, given sex.com's failure to
protect it.
>So, we should allow unjust enrichment every time a domain drops? Duh.
>
>
Also, of course, I have yet to see that having "sex.info" enriched
anyone -- since people go to .com by default.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:43 EDT