Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
EasyTech2 |
| Date/Time: |
Sat, January 5, 2002 at 8:40 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V6.0 using Windows 98 |
| Subject: |
is a licensing deal correct according to Afilias policy? |
Message: |
|
Sure, you can license a trademark to get the right to use this trademark.
But
does this mean if someone is a licensee s/he could legitimly register a domain name
under Sunrise policy?
I know someone else mentioned these some weeks ago. But
does this really work?'4 c. (i) at the time of the registration of
the Domain Name, a trademark or service mark was REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTY,
and was current (non-expired), as evidenced by the date(s) set forth in the certificate
itself;4 and...'
http://www.afilias.com/register/dispute_resolution/sunrise_challenge_policy_revised
(new policy) '4 b. (i) at the time of your registration of the Domain
Name, a trademark or service mark was REGISTERED IN YOUR NAME and was current (non-expired),
as evidenced by the date(s) set forth in the certificate itself;4 and...'
http://www.afilias.com/register/dispute_resolution/sunrise_challenge_policy
(old challenge policy) Can a licensee really claim that a trademark or service
mark was REGISTERED HIS/HER YOUR NAME? I don't think so. The trademark or service
mark was REGISTERED IN THE NAME of the TRADEMARK REGISTRANT and was licensed to the
licensee.
Therefore I think a licensee is not in compliance with the sunrise policy.
Is
the licensee and the registrant of a trademark really the same? Is this licensing
deal you mentioned for a word/domain in the area of 'online games'?
|
|
|
| Link: |
http://www.afilias.com/register/dispute_resolution/sunrise_challenge_overview |
Message Thread:
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy