Re: DOTNET.NET

Dan Lieberman (dan@general.amug.org)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 00:56:00 -0600 (MDT)

No, actually, it wasn't. It never went to court. I was in the emply of
Mr. Curry at the time of the mtv.com dispute, and since MTV Networks KNEW
that they couldn't win in court, they settled out of court. And since
Mr. Curry was bound by contract to not speak of the terms of the
settlement, that must mean that MTV Networks paid him a LOT of money.
The official words were "A solution that is equitable for all parties
involved". But it also included a clause that said that he could not use
a capital letter M, T, or V in any advertisements of any subsequent
domain names he may register (ie, metaverse.com.. advertisements as
MeTaVerse.com would be a violation of that agreement).

Just what I know from what I've been told by Mr. Curry....

Dan

On Thu, 24 Aug 1995, Scott Evensen wrote:

>
> >I question this trademark, since it has been filed, but not approved.
> >Also, "dot net" is the ending to ~1/5 of all U.S. domains -- this makes it
> >a commonly used phrase which is not trademarkable. The big question is can
> >Tris persuade a lawyer to represent him for a reasonable amount to protect
> >dotnet.net. I'd also like to point out that printing business cards &
> >advertising materials with an unapproved domain is just plain stupid.
> >
>
> This issue has already been decided in court with mtv.com. As long as Tris is
> going to use it for personal use and not business use there is nothing
> those assholes
> can do.
>
> Scott Evensen (2 more years and I could represent Tris)
>
>
>