- Lecturer in Law. University of Edinburgh. Email: Charlotte.Waelde@ed.ac.uk I would like to express my sincere thanks to Sam Wilson, Postmaster at Edinburgh University for his very helpful comments on various drafts of this paper.
- SeeTerrett.
- For further information on InterNic
see below and Terrett
- For details of some of the cases that have arisen in the US see the home page of the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. in Washington DC.
- Polaroid Corp. v Polaroid Electronics Corp. 287 F 2d 492.
- 1996 US Dist Lexis 14977 29 August 1996.
- Duluth News-Tribune v Mesabi Publishing Co. 84 F 3d 1093 8th Cir 1996
- Centaur Communications 830 F2d.
- Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Balducci Publications 28 F 3d 769 8th Cir 1994.
- High Court, Ch D December 9, 1996. For comment on this case see “Protecting Your Name on the Internet”. Gardner (1997) 8 Computers and Law 23.
- Unreported. High Court Ch D 22 May 1997. For further information see link here
- For further information see link here.
- For the latest revision and details of this policy see link here.
- [1996] RPC 281.
- [1995] FSR 713
- [1994] RPC 556
- [1990] RPC 341
- Mead Data Control Inc. v Toyota Motor Sales USA 875 F 2d 1026 A 1031
- Case C96 130 WD.
- Footnote to follow.
- No 96 C 1982 ND 1II.
- Ch D 12 September 1996.
- W R Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 3rd edn (1996) Sweet & Maxwell p542.
- Trade Marks Act 1994, s 5(3).
- The reluctance of the judiciary to embrace the doctrine of dilution is exemplified by Baywatch Production Co. Ltd. v The Home Video Channel [1997] FSR 22 where the High Court considered the ambit of s 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which outlaws infringement of registered marks with “a reputation in the UK”. The court considered that section 10(3) only applied where:
1. a sign is similar to the trade mark, so that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, is used in relation to goods and services which are not similar to the mark; and
2. the mark has a reputation in the UK; and
3. the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes advantage of, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
However, doubt has been expressed as to whether this interpretation of s10(3) is correct as there is no reference to confusion in the wording of the section.
- See Terrett and link here.
- For perceptive discussion on the policy and various revisions see:
C Oppedahl. “Avoid the Traps in the New Rules for Registering a Domain Name”. New York Law Journal. 8 August 1995.
C Oppedahl. “NSI Domain Name Dispute Policy puts Owners at significant Risk”. New York Law Journal 21 May 1996
C Oppedahl. “Fourth Domain Name Policy Leaves Owners with Few Options”. New York Law Journal 3 September 1996
- IHAC is a coalition of participants from the Internet community. Membership includes the Internet Society (ISOC), Internet Assigned Numbers authority (IANA), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Federal Networking Council (FNC), International Trademark Association (INTA), and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
- See (1997) BNA 2 EPLR 747 for details
- For a response to this issue see link here
- For which see link here and comment here.
- (1997) BNA 2 EPLR 748.