<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Register.com Goes After Register.cc</title>
	<atom:link href="http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/</link>
	<description>Domain Name Industry News and Views</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 20:15:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: apartments in singapore</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-1176488</link>
		<dc:creator>apartments in singapore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-1176488</guid>
		<description>Nice post here, thought I could learn more from &lt;a href=&quot;http://sgpropertylaunchguru.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;properties in singapore for sale&lt;/a&gt; but we can learn more from this post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post here, thought I could learn more from <a href="http://sgpropertylaunchguru.com" rel="nofollow">properties in singapore for sale</a> but we can learn more from this post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Register.com Loses Register.cc Battle - The Domain Industry's News Source</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-162362</link>
		<dc:creator>Domain Name Wire &#187; News &#187; Register.com Loses Register.cc Battle - The Domain Industry's News Source</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-162362</guid>
		<description>[...] filed under UDRP by Register.com for the domain Register.cc (first covered on Domain Name Wire here.) The three person panel found that, while the domain is identical to Register.com&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color: #FFfbd0">
<p>[...] filed under UDRP by Register.com for the domain Register.cc (first covered on Domain Name Wire here.) The three person panel found that, while the domain is identical to Register.com&#8217;s [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-162354</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-162354</guid>
		<description>Thanks guys...working on a story now</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks guys&#8230;working on a story now</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Zan</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-162269</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Zan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-162269</guid>
		<description>Yup. Decision&#039;s finally published:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm

One other interesting bit about this is it involved 2 lawyers well-experienced in this thing. I&#039;m sure they both gave their all, but there can only be one. :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yup. Decision&#8217;s finally published:</p>
<p><a href="http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm" rel="nofollow">http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm</a></p>
<p>One other interesting bit about this is it involved 2 lawyers well-experienced in this thing. I&#8217;m sure they both gave their all, but there can only be one. <img src='http://domainnamewire.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: no-name</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-162230</link>
		<dc:creator>no-name</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-162230</guid>
		<description>shhhh  domainit.com WON!  woohoo for the little guy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>shhhh  domainit.com WON!  woohoo for the little guy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Berryhill</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-162209</link>
		<dc:creator>John Berryhill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-162209</guid>
		<description>Nod to cdunn on this one.  The &quot;first use&quot; date claimed in a TM application is not relied upon for any substantive examination purpose.  As also pointed out, the &quot;REGISTER&quot; applications were issued on a 2(f) - acquired distinctiveness - basis.  Hence, one thing that is certain from the face of the registrations is that the claimed term was not distinctive when first used.

Decision here:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm
Register.com, Inc. v. Domain-it!, Inc. c/o Domain-It Hostmaster</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nod to cdunn on this one.  The &#8220;first use&#8221; date claimed in a TM application is not relied upon for any substantive examination purpose.  As also pointed out, the &#8220;REGISTER&#8221; applications were issued on a 2(f) &#8211; acquired distinctiveness &#8211; basis.  Hence, one thing that is certain from the face of the registrations is that the claimed term was not distinctive when first used.</p>
<p>Decision here:</p>
<p><a href="http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm" rel="nofollow">http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1126697.htm</a><br />
Register.com, Inc. v. Domain-it!, Inc. c/o Domain-It Hostmaster</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Register.com files dispute to get Register.cc</title>
		<link>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/comment-page-1/#comment-158702</link>
		<dc:creator>Register.com files dispute to get Register.cc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:26:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc/#comment-158702</guid>
		<description>[...] To read the full article in Domain Name Wire, see domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="background-color: #FFfbd0">
<p>[...] To read the full article in Domain Name Wire, see domainnamewire.com/2008/03/03/registercom-goes-after-registercc [...]</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

