Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	tomsters
Date/Time:	Tue, August 14, 2001 at 6:57 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject:	Good idea
Message:
Let the onus (and cash outlay) be on the tm holder. If they do have an exact matching tm, their money is refunded. If not, they lose their money. This will eliminate all the frauds as they wont put up the money. This will allow the real registrants (landrush) to claim their names. Most of these registrants have paid a prereg fee and will have to pay a registrar fee. Why charge them again a third time in the form of a wipo fee when it is purely the fault of a process? The wipo process should be used for real trademark disputes.

Message Thread:

• New Proposal for Action by Afilias — domebase, August 14 @ 6:34 PM (5/12)
• But even this doesn't solve... — dtobias, August 14 @ 9:44 PM (1/1)
• You are right — tomsters, August 14 @ 10:00 PM (0/0)
• revised based on your comments — domebase, August 14 @ 7:36 PM (1/1)
• How about the potential disaster of "Closed" lists? — challenge, August 14 @ 8:29 PM (0/0)
• We got this down, now how about this other potential fiasco??? — challenge, August 14 @ 6:57 PM (0/0)
• That's a good idea but.... — tomsters, August 14 @ 6:47 PM (1/2)
• Yes, I agree that Challenge fee should be — domebase, August 14 @ 7:12 PM (1/1)
• Sounds good. — tomsters, August 14 @ 7:17 PM (0/0)
• I disagree with one aspect in this plan — challenge, August 14 @ 6:46 PM (2/3)
• I agree that burden of proof should be on Sunrise Registrant — domebase, August 14 @ 7:16 PM (0/0)
• Good idea — tomsters, August 14 @ 6:57 PM (1/1)
• Excellent! — onmove, August 14 @ 7:30 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy