<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Lawoffice.com vs Lawoffice.net litigation
- To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] Lawoffice.com vs Lawoffice.net litigation
- From: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:58:02 -0800
- Cc: "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <richard.hill@xxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html>
<body>
Dear Registrars: It is interesting that this dispute was handled by
the courts. I wonder whether the UDRP was unsuccessful or was not
used. Regards, BobC<br><br>
<div align="center"><b><a href="http://www.worldtrademarklawreport.com/index.cfm?action=login&c=1046621&id=930";>West
Group wins in fight over online LAWOFFICES</a></b> <b>USA</b> <br>
In <i>DeGidio v West Group Corporation</i>, the Sixth Circuit has ruled
that the plaintiff registrant of the domain name 'lawoffices.net' had no
trademark rights in LAWOFFICES because it was descriptive and without
secondary meaning. Therefore, the defendant legal publisher had not
violated trademark law when it adopted and used the domain name
'lawoffice.com'.
<a href="http://www.worldtrademarklawreport.com/index.cfm?action=login&c=1046621&id=930";>Full
text</a> </div>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|