Guest
Hi safesys & others
Can you explain where online you picked up this info?
Thx.
host1515
Can you explain where online you picked up this info?
Thx.
host1515
Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🤖 Connect your own LLMs and agents through DNF AI Hub, similar to tagging @grok on X - Ask questions, research domains, and get AI help directly inside DNForum.
-
Welcome to DNForum.com™ - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 0
I think that the issue is narrowly defined in the ruling. Firstly, many jurisdictions do not accept incorporations or trademarks which include the .com (or any other tld) as an extension of a term.
Had they protected (if possible) internetnews, etc., as a trademark, it would have been another story. I don't think the issue is one of a .com domain holder's inability to seek redress against the .info registrant. Rather, trademark takes precedence if properly litigated.
I often wonder why trademark holders don't effectively use the bludgeon of a lawsuit, forgoing WIPO, as most registrants (let's say squatters
for arguments sake), certainly lack the resources to mount an effective defense ...
I agree with safesys, most trademark holders are probably confident in their ability to wrestle away the name if push comes to shove ...
Had they protected (if possible) internetnews, etc., as a trademark, it would have been another story. I don't think the issue is one of a .com domain holder's inability to seek redress against the .info registrant. Rather, trademark takes precedence if properly litigated.
I often wonder why trademark holders don't effectively use the bludgeon of a lawsuit, forgoing WIPO, as most registrants (let's say squatters
for arguments sake), certainly lack the resources to mount an effective defense ...I agree with safesys, most trademark holders are probably confident in their ability to wrestle away the name if push comes to shove ...
Guest
- Status
