Re: [ifwp] Re: Registration Contact Details

[martys@pop.interport.net]

>Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> Is it useful to re-litigate the One In A Million case, where defendants
>> were represented by people who had actually studied the law and were
>> admitted to practice, and still lost?  Then they lost before an appellate
>> tribunal.
>
Mueller wrote:

>Glad to see yet another concession that litigation is giving the TM people what
>they want. Now, explain to me again why we have to reorganize the entire DNS
>registration process to suit their needs?--MM


The DNS registration process is an opportunity to lessen the wholesale
unlawful activities, such as name trafficking and piracy of the type
condemned by U.S., U.K., French and German courts, yet defended by the
previous poster.

As an initial point, the poster's position is contradictory  - in his first
posting he argues that the One In A Million case is wrong - in this posting
he argues that it is right.

As to the "litigation solves all" idea as a substitute for any type of
registration procedue or dispute resolution procedure, as has been
previously posted in response to the previous poster's writings (to which
he has never commented upon) - the short answer is: the plaintiffs in One
In A Million, like most plaintiffs in trademark litigation, don't win
anything.  They spent several hundred thousand dollars and several hundred
hours to prevent the on-going violation of their legally recognized rights.
All they won was the prior status quo.  In a piracy situation, even when
the trademark owner wins, the trademark owner LOSES.

Incidentally, the "litigation solves all" idea (which is actually the
absence of an idea), is not particularly suitable to small businesses who
can get ripped off (happens everyday) and don't have the resources to
litigate (didn't Ms. Kleiman in her testimony before Congress claim that
the owner of pony.com's claims were meritorious but didn't have the
resources to litigate, so an injustice resulted?).  Maybe litigation does
not solve all

This is another instance where rhetoric aimed at an easy target (big TM
interests) would result in a system far more damaging to the small business
person than the target of the rhetoric.

As for the actual merits of the "idea," I suppose by an extension of the
revious poster's logic, preventative measures have no place in the world.
There is no need for locks and security systems, arresting criminals is all
that is needed to "suit" the aggrieved person's "needs."