[35349] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher A. Woodfield)
Wed Mar 7 11:26:39 2001
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:17:54 -0500
From: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010307111753.A13730@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011701c0a6bc$3adb7fe0$7c4cf9d1@geeksparadise.com>; from davids@webmaster.com on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 07:48:39PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I know a guy whose name happens to be the same as a popular British
designer clothing line. For privacy purposes, I'll call him, and the
designer, Joe Blow. He owns and uses joeblow.com, and the designer has
a website at joeblow.co.uk. But now the designer has decided that they
want joeblow.com, and are sending in the landsharks.
If he can weather the legal storm, I think he'll win, because (a) it's him
name and (b) he's actively using the domain. Have there been any cases of
the original owner losing in a similar scenario?
-C
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 07:48:39PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> > Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
>
> Any one involving a person's name. The basic principle that you have a
> right to use your name in trade (which simply means that no one can prevent
> a name from being used!) has been turned on its head.
>
> DS
>
>
--
---------------------------
Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
