Some consider notHarvard's suit to be a preemptive legal strike aimed at staking the jurisdiction of the conflict in Texas rather than Massachusetts, where a judge would presumably be more sympathetic to Harvard's claim of trademark infringement.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, one Washington lawyer said that the University would have to ask the Austin judge for a change of venue in order to have the trial held in Massachusetts.

Harvard alleges in its suit, filed in Massachusetts District Court, that Massachusetts has proper jurisdiction over the case.

Professor William W. Fisher, who teaches a course on intellectual property at the law school, said that notHarvard's lawsuit was probably a wise attempt to resolve the dispute earlier rather than later.

"If a company adopts a domain name, and is subsequently forced to abandon it, the result could be catastrophic to the enterprise," Fisher said. "NotHarvard doesn't want to be in a position a year or two from now in losing a trademark suit initiated by Harvard and then being forced to abandon its name."

Harvard maintains that, as in previous cases when it has tried to protect its name, the issue is more about principle than profit.

"The money is not the primary issue," said Wrinn. "The use of the name is."