RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision

["Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <rorenday@banxico.org.mx>]

Alright, then. You speak of:

1) a place in Wellington called "The Mexican Cantina". Nothing wrong with
calling something "Mexican", if it is (or attempts to be or pass for)
Mexican, so long as you don't claim it has any percentage of Mexican content
in it, or that is was made in Mexico if it wasn't. That's exactly what the
word's meant for, it an adjective indicating nationality or origin.

2) anotheroner called "Texas". Big deal; political subdivisions of a
federated State, such as the USA, are not subjects of Public International
Law, remember?.

Plus you say (quote) "I am not aware of any principle which operates to give
states the power of preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or
confusing
variants." (unquote).

Well then, what about foreign trade laws that enforce national content or
country of origin requisites?. If someone puts "made in Mexico" on something
that wasn't made in Mexico (and wouldn't that be missuse of the name
"Mexico"?), that person might be in for trouble, don't you think?.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

-----Mensaje original-----
De: barrister@chambers.gen.nz [mailto:barrister@chambers.gen.nz]
Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 07:32 PM
Para: 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'; 'Rodrigo Orenday
Serrato'
CC: ga@dnso.org
Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision


On 19 Dec 2002 at 17:40, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:

S@dnso.org>
Subject:        	RE: [ga] NewZealand.com WIPO decision
Date sent:      	Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:40:03 -0600

> Amazed again?. Professor, we'd been over this one before, remember?.
>
Have to say I am with Professor Froomkin on this one.
I am not aware of any principle which operates to give states the power of
preventing use (or even misuse) of their country name or confusing
variants.

If this were true, my law school frriend coudn't have opened, as he
succesfully did, a restaurant in Wellington known as the Mexican
Cantina...add to that other Wellington shops like Paris, Texas (no "other
characters capable of making  it sufficiently distinctive")
 multiply examples like that around the world, and you see how
impractical the suggestion would be, if it were true.

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush

> If you're looking for ICJ precedents and so, I know of none such; I
> would argue this on the grounds of international custom and committee.
> Period.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>>
> And on what existing principle of public international law do you
> ground this amazaing assertion?
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>
> > Notwithstanding this decision, I still sustain that the naming of
> Sovereign
> > States is a matter of public international law and public interest,
> > and
> that
> > no one but a State should be allowed to use neither its official
> > denomination nor its common name, absent other characters capable of
> making
> > it sufficiently distinctive.
> >
> > Atentamente, Regards
> > Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
> >
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En nombre de Marc
> > Schneiders Enviado el: Jueves, 19 de Diciembre de 2002 03:35 PM
> > Para: Steven Heath CC: ga@dnso.org Asunto: RE: [ga] NewZealand.com
> > WIPO decision
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, at 09:27 [=GMT+1300], Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > Even more interesting to read the BNA Law summary of the decision:
> > >
> > > Further, the panel termed the action "baseless" and "misconceived"
> > > as it unanimously found that the government engaged in reverse
> > > domain
> name
> > > hijacking in bringing the action."
> >
> > Congratulations to the NZ government. I don't think any other
> > government has been declared to be a domain name hijacker. (The
> > decision occurs very rarely and governments/city councils tend to
> > win.) A Book of Records entry for the country named after a province
> > in mine!
> >
> > The fact that the NZ government did file the complaint, shows that
> > even among those elected by the people, attempting theft is not a
> > big deal. Or is it that the UDRP, as applied, is succeeding in
> > misleading good politicians into believing Everything Trademark
> > Lawyers Dream of When They Do Not Have a Nightmare?
> >
> > Is there any progress to report about the pending review of the UDRP
> > by ICANN, due for end 2000?
> >
> > Will the evaluation of new gTLDs also take so long to get going? I
> > hope not.
> >
> > There are some facts we best ignore, right?
> >
> > --
> > [01] All ideas are vintage not new or perfect.
> > http://logoff.org/
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
>   Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm U.
> Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1
> (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html