[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IODesign Files Suit Against CORE
- To: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Subject: Re: IODesign Files Suit Against CORE
- From: Dave Crocker <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 10:14:58 -0800
- Cc: Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
For thos interested in reviewing the judge's rejection in IOD's previous
lawsuit (against the IAHC), see:
I just noticed the following language from it:
> The second category of claims really has to do with the unfair
>competition. There we have the claim of Image
>Online that they have a proprietary and protectable interest in dot web.
> I find the evidence insufficient to support either factually, or
>as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff has established
>that it has protectable proprietary interest in the term -- or the word --
>term "dot web," considering the nature of the
>interweb and the usage of the term, vis a vis, the interweb -- the Internet.
I wonder how IOD will argue that their proprietary interest has changed?
For that matter, how the heck do they justify central California as the
legal venue, given CORE in Switzerland and Stubbs in Florida?
Dave Crocker 675 Spruce Drive Tel: +1.408.246.8253
Brandenburg Consulting Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Fax: +1.408.273.6464