browse comments: up-dates and feedback

up-dates and feedback
joseph reesha (base@pacificnet.net)
Mon, 01 Mar 1999 08:27:16 -0800

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Thomas Ropers: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Richard Sexton: "Comments on WIPO RFC-3"

Please e-mail and/or postal-mail WIPO Up-Dates as they become available. I
am interested and most likely affected by the many decisions to be made by
your
body over the coming months and years.

Also, I would like to feedback to you about the Domain Name and trademark
protection
issue. It would seem that The Domain Name protection could hindge on
being specific
within the scope of the name. This puts responsibility on we, the
corporate owners
(i.e., Thunder Light, Inc. & Joseph C. Reesha own Thunderink.com which is
also a very
specific Corporate Division).

The Department of Corporations (DOC) did not want to give me ThunderInk,
Inc. They said that the title is confusing with Thunder Incorporated.
Well, that is to say that in Washington and Orgon State you must confront
the DOC for use of the title "Pacific Northwes ...., Inc. As a matter of
FACT, I started Pacific Northwest Mining & Mercantile, Inc. They had no
grounds to hold back the name. I've had it since the 70's.

I find the two situations the same. It is one thing to protect the sound of
an engine or instrument whose sound is directly related to that product,
like Harley Davidson's motorcycle; whose sound is in the control of the
manufacture. However, Harley and Davildson outside of the corportate
identity are just two names. Thunder is Thunder. Thunder Ink, Inc. is
very specific: A corporate division of writes or associated with writing
and developement in intertainment based on the written word: Powerfull
writing! I haven't confronted the DOC yet because I'm busy, but I'll win
easily. The net is not so difficult: Make it so it's specific in nature,
look at the legal dates of ownership, allow for disputes and take it from
there.

Cordiall,

Joseph C. Reesha
COB/