In article <bhatchDr39wM.Lt8@netcom.com>, Roberta Hatch <bhatch@netcom.com> wrote:
>dgraft@gate.net (Donald Graft) writes:
>>ewindsor@netcom.com (Elizabeth Windsor) writes:
>>>dgraft@gate.net (Donald Graft) writes:
>
>>>>You got it. Mr Doughney had his ass rightly kicked for infringing
>>>>PETA's trademark.
>
>>> Excuse me, Sir Donald, but Mr Doughney has posted something
>>>about the domain name. Since you seem to be disputing what he has
>>>posted, perhaps you could provide the readership with the details.
>
>>What don't you understand, Bobbi? "PETA" is a registered trademark.
>>Mr Doughney infringed upon it. The law is *clearly* on PETA's side,
>>and InterNIC has acknowledged it. Mr Doughney will save himself a
>>lot of money and aggravation by obeying the law, something you
>>animal abusers are so fond of. :-)
>
> You may very well be right. However those aren't the details
>that were asked for. Those comments look more like speculation on
>your part. Do you have knowledge that "Mr Doughney had his ass
>rightly kicked for infringing PETA's trademark", or not?

Despite rumors to the contrary, there is no lawsuit in progress directly connected with this matter.

I may have had my Constitutional rights of free speech trampled on by an agency of the Federal Government, among other things, but at the moment, I have not had my 'ass kicked' over any trademark issue.

Just like any other shortsighted large corporate entity (why does the name "McDonalds" suddently come to mind?), "PeTA" is using every available tool to get what it wants. That the tools are faulty in having no basis in law, nor showing any respect for property or free speech rights, doesn't seem to matter to them. Perhaps that tells us all something about their methods and true agenda.
> Caught telling another whopper, Donald?

More like he and his virtual lawyer are spinning tall tales...

In article <4mti3i$8m9@sadie.digex.net>, I <mike@sadie.digex.net> wrote:
>I may have had my Constitutional rights of free speech trampled on by
>an agency of the Federal Government, among other things,

Pardon my inadvertant US-centrism. I am referring to the fact that the "Domain Name Dispute Policy" that is being applied here to confiscate the peta.org domain name has apparently been directly approved by the National Science Foundation, an agency of the US Government. See point 15 at: http://www.patents.com/nsians.sht