catchnames
Member
You are taking this thread to another discussion ?
1.If web.in whois record is not proper then you should contact Directi not Mitsu ?
You didn't get my point. Web.in indrp is fishy decision. Businessx.in was showing compliance issues before current whois update. A compliance issue related to domain name can't be confidential.Read the whole thread."web" trademark owner was in garment business as per INURD now starting registry service with a address of India and phone number of USA.whole thing is fishy.
2. If you donot search properly then what will you get see this link :
ICANN | WIPO Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains: Intellectual Property Considerations and then go to point No. 59 ? please donot tell now that ICANN link is also forged ?
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/2001/dinfo00000-00199.html and see case no.DINFO2001-00011-0001.
Thanks for doing the search for me.
3. For your last statement filing case is choice of TM holder that if their IP rights are violated or not ?
I am not only who raised this point.
Read this
Business.Info Accredited Registrar for .in ?
PLEASE STOP THIS NOW AS YOU ARE GETTING PERSONAL ? PLEASE DONOT GO OUT OF DISCUSSION.
I am not getting personal.Only pointing out fishy practices prevalent in .in and .in registry level.No wonder in is not getting attention of big portion of market.
1.If web.in whois record is not proper then you should contact Directi not Mitsu ?
You didn't get my point. Web.in indrp is fishy decision. Businessx.in was showing compliance issues before current whois update. A compliance issue related to domain name can't be confidential.Read the whole thread."web" trademark owner was in garment business as per INURD now starting registry service with a address of India and phone number of USA.whole thing is fishy.
2. If you donot search properly then what will you get see this link :
ICANN | WIPO Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains: Intellectual Property Considerations and then go to point No. 59 ? please donot tell now that ICANN link is also forged ?
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/2001/dinfo00000-00199.html and see case no.DINFO2001-00011-0001.
Thanks for doing the search for me.
3. For your last statement filing case is choice of TM holder that if their IP rights are violated or not ?
I am not only who raised this point.
Read this
Business.Info Accredited Registrar for .in ?
PLEASE STOP THIS NOW AS YOU ARE GETTING PERSONAL ? PLEASE DONOT GO OUT OF DISCUSSION.
I am not getting personal.Only pointing out fishy practices prevalent in .in and .in registry level.No wonder in is not getting attention of big portion of market.