Josh wrote

>>>
Have there been any legal precedents set (in Australia or OS) for getting
your own name back from people like this:

http://www.australiapost.com/
>>>>

What do you mean your name? This site looks quite established. As an
information/news site there is a long tradition of using "post" as part of
a  title i.e. the Washington Post being a case in point.  (A very old
tradition)

There is no use grumbling over Australia Post's  lack of initiative in
getting the name earlier. The fairest question (and good luck to the
current owner) is how much you are prepared to pay to protect your
branding.

By the way. People like this? You mean people quicker and smarter than
Australia Post?

The big question is how far does and should a local Trademark or law extend
in an obviously global network. Unless of course the content legislation is
extended into this realm *#§$!...

Anyone read the SMH biz.com peice on Greenmailers this morning? Aside from
an obvious publicity stunt for tonight from some quarters it is a shame
that it seems to paint some people getting on the net early as somehow a
bad thing.

It seems to me that some people actually want to reward those who are too
slow, ignorant or timid to get on the net early. What a lovely thought.

I would love to hear on this list something really new, say a new approach
to the old copyright or trade mark  issues. Ideas that encompass the new
digital global age rather than Guttenburgs world.... None of this hiding
behind soft legal walls something more in tune with where we are going
rather than where we have been......

Cheers all,

Matthew King