RE: We cannot really stop anyone from becoming a LIR... -- RIPE Hostmaster
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
Hm, this seems like a strange request.
The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but thus just seemed too obvious...
I agree with Håvard. RIPE NCC has no authority to adjudicate on entitlement to trading names; that's a matter for the parties concerned and perhaps the Companies Office in the UK. Regards. Mike
mike.norris@heanet.ie wrote:
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
Hm, this seems like a strange request.
The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but thus just seemed too obvious...
I agree with Hevard. RIPE NCC has no authority to adjudicate on entitlement to trading names; that's a matter for the parties concerned and perhaps the Companies Office in the UK.
In general I agree. But perhaps RIPE NCC should or has already asked their lawyers (sigh!) about the potential legal implications (if any) of not checking for an existing LIR using the same name (and in the same country). RIPE NCC should't have to bother with such disputes but there may or may not be liability considerations - sez he also not a lawyer but knowing how they always manage to make a mountain out of molehill.
Regards.
Mike
Regards as always, Dave "It's hard to make a comeback if you haven't been anywhere" - Anon "...and the news from Guadalajara where the temperature is 96 degrees, is that Falcao is warming up."
At 11:16 09/05/00 +0100, mike.norris@heanet.ie wrote:
The following is an extract from a series of communications on the subject of RIPE having recently authorised the addition of another LIR in the UK, which uses the same trading name of an existing member. It is our feeling that RIPE should not have allowed the addition of this LIR on the basis that the company in question trades using a name which could easily confuse the general public as to which company is which and that since our company was an existing member, and had previously been a LIR in another country as well, they should have decline the application of the LIR on the basis that their trading name could cause a conflict and confuse the general public, and would further cause damage to an existing member's company and reputation.
Hm, this seems like a strange request.
The point of contest here seems to be the trading name used by the company who is now a (newly established) LIR, not that organization's ability to become a LIR. I don't see how the RIPE NCC can be concerned about the use of a trading name by an applicant for LIR status, and the possible infringement on someone else's rights to that name or the potential for resulting market confusion. This issue should instead be brought before the apporpriate authority, which I assume would be some part of the legal system in the UK.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I even don't play one on the net, but thus just seemed too obvious...
I agree with Håvard. RIPE NCC has no authority to adjudicate on entitlement to trading names; that's a matter for the parties concerned and perhaps the Companies Office in the UK.
Ditto. Not RIPE NCC's place to be playing trademark judge. -Hank
Regards.
Mike
participants (3)
-
Dave Morton -
Hank Nussbacher -
mike.norris＠heanet.ie