From: Editor, People Eating Tasty Animals <eats@peta.org>

In article <317CDEE8.5512@nowhere.com>, Lisa Seaman wrote:

>>An "organization" consisting of exactly one person. Yours truly. And
>>"peta.org" is not in any way owned by "People for the Ethical Treatment
>>of Animals" nor do they have any grounds upon which to claim ownership
>>of that domain name.
>
>And so you've hired an attorney simply for the fine company.

No, I've hired an attorney to defend what is rightfully mine.

>Peta does own the trademark on PETA, and unless you can prove that
>your domain name was in use by you before the date they first used the
>trademark you should have at most 90 days from the date of NSI's
>request to move your site to a new domain.
>
>Check out paragraph 6.C.3 of NSI's revised Domain Dispute Policy
>Statement at http://rs.internic.net/domain-info/internic-domain-4.html

(Let's play Dueling URL's.) A policy statement with which I am intimately familiar, and which is the subject of a lawsuit. See http://www.patents.com/nsi.sht -- Expect this policy to change Real Soon Now.

>>Ownership of a trademark does not automatically
>>grant an individual or organization priority to a domain name - an
>>object which did not exist until I applied for it.
>
>No it does not automatically, but Peta is now disputing your usage of it.

And the core of the dispute is their claim that they get the domain name automatically. Your point?

>There are also NSI conditions to registering a domain name, 2 of the 4
>you violated:
>
>that "the use or registration of the Domain Name by Applicant does not
>interfere with or infringe the right of any third party with respect
>to trademark,"

It does not. Use of those four letters in that address does not constitute use of a trademark. In the same way, my personal domain name using my initials, "mtd.com" does not infringe the trademark of MTD Products, a Cleveland lawnmower manufacturer, though they have already demanded that "the next time [they] check, the only MTD on the Internet will be [MTD Products]." This is just plain silly.

You'd think by now that large and wealthy companies and organizations would take the hint and, rather than helping to keep lawyers fed, get a clue. Unfortunately, the word "negotiate" doesn't seem to exist in "PeTA's" vocabulary.

>and that "Applicant is not seeking to use the Domain Name for any
>unlawful purpose, including, without limitation...injuring the
>reputation of another, or for the purpose of confusing or misleading a
>person, whether natural or incorporated."

With more than 40 different classifications for trademark claims in the U.S. alone, along with corporation names registered in 50 U.S. states, personal names and initials, inevitably there will be a bit of confusion. This is a technical problem; there is no way to avoid conflicts when all the duplicate names from all these catagories are merged into one or two namespaces.

My use of peta.org is not, and has never been intended to cause confusion. An obvious link to the website of "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" has always been provided for those who wish to access that site and who may have arrived here in error. No harm or real confusion has ever resulted from such events.

>>It, and I, "advocate" nothing in particular other than debate,
>>discussion, reason and skepticism.
>
>That's bullshit. Your site is antagonistic and bitter, and it's up
>solely to annoy people like me.

Mail and links from other rather prestigious web sites, including Yahoo!, indicates to me that the "Tasty Animals" web page is being used as a resource by those who are interested in the subjects and issues addressed there.

There will always be those who are offended by the free exchange of information of every type. Obviously you fit quite nicely in that group.

>I do think you have a legitimate
>grievance against people or organizations that seek to impose their
>values on everyone else,

Then, I take it, you are indeed sending your money to an organization that apparently attempts to do just that? How thoughtful of you.

> and I even applaud your clever method, it's
>just the content that sucks -
>
>"A resource for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather,
>hunting, and the fruits of scientific research," is basically a
>resource for those who enjoy any activity that involves the killing or
>torture of animals. So then I wish you'd lose your shroud of academic
>links and get right to the point.

The academic links are quite relevant. Though from your fanatical position, which centers upon ignoring most of the evidence (and common sense while you're at it), you'd prefer that they just didn't exist.

>Put up some quicktimes of the
>torture and suffering of these animals you enjoy eating or wearing or
>experimenting on, because that's really what you claim to be getting
>at. I mean, you just don't quite strike me as a man of debate,
>discussion and reason.

- From your mail and postings, I think you're incapable of recognizing "debate, discussion and reason" when it occurs and doesn't quite match your point of view.

>Or if you hate peta so much, WHY. I donate money to them, I'd like to
>know and so might other people who'll be unintentionally hitting that
>site. Most people are members of Peta because they love animals, do
>you have any reason other than notoriety and antagonism for putting up
>that site?

The reasons why I have created the "Tasty Animals" web site are plainly available for all to see at that location. I've received hundreds of e-mails from animal lovers of every persuasion, while I get the general impression that "PeTA" members and sympathizers generally follow the cultic practice of "doctrine over person" along with "doctrine over animals." Love and compassion for animals and people, if they even exist in the typical "PeTA" supporter, seem to never be expressed as concern for the welfare of either. Almost all the 'hate mail' I receive is just the parroting of a party line that seems to be based only upon the exercise of power, and unjustifiable initiation of force over others; never are any real, concrete suggestions for the improvement of animal welfare or our environment even mentioned.

Perhaps I should refer everyone to point number 7 at http://ex-cult.org/General/lifton-criteria while I'm at it.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to see the flood of hate mail you thought your massive crosspost was going to cause.