Quote:
Originally Posted by DotXXX
While we understand that this situation mat be not ideal for XBIZ, this registrant does not appear to have engaged in serial cybersquatting, and for all we know may have some legitimate rights in the name (as others clearly have). We cannot take unilateral action, without due process in this circumstance under our own cybersquatting policies. The rules are there, and we must abide by them too.
Oh ? and by the way, you?ll be more than welcome to apply for mikesouth.xxx the moment we roll out the performer program. You can see that it?s clearly part of the program by looking at the Registrant Name section of the whois for that domain. Any and every name that is currently being held in a performer escrow account was placed there to ensure that the only people that had the ability to register those names, were, in fact, the performer/professional listed.
|
How is it that ICM can take unilateral action with respect to performer names, but ICM cannot take unilateral action with respect to existing marks and names other than performer names?
You mention the possibility that the registrant of XBIZ.xxx "may have some legitimate rights in the name;" is it inconceivable that an individual or company other than the performer himself/herself might have some legitimate rights to those names?
How can you have it both ways?
In some instances, stage names of a given performer might actually be the registered trademark of a third-party, btw. Was any consideration given to that possibility when ICM created the performer program?