|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, February 16 2013 @ 04:33 PM EST |
The problem there is that the domain holder has had the domain for a LONG time.
So the first bit about "the complainant has rights", there is at least
a *strongly* colourable claim that the complainants rights *post*date the
defendant's registration.
That's probably why Python.org are trying to get as much stuff as they can
that's as old as possible - much of the stuff we've come up with is too new. Go
back to patents - prior art has to be *prior* - it's easy to find post-dated
infringing art, it's hard to find valid prior art.
As for B - respondent is using or threatening to use ... well, that's a lot
closer to the mark. But it still doesn't address the problem that the domain
holder has had it for a very long (in internet terms) time. This domain has been
around almost as far back as the days of DOS!
Python.org really need to win the trademark battle first. Which under UK law
really *should* be very simple. "We were here long ago". In fact, from
what I've read, Python.org should just get a hold of their product and say to
the trademark people "Look. Their product runs on Python. That's why they
want to trademark it. But it's *our* Python". That should be the end of
their claim.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Flip the issue - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 17 2013 @ 01:57 PM EST
|
|
|
|