RE: [nc-udrp] DRP Trademarks?

["Cole, Tim" <tcole@arb-forum.com>]

The National Arbitration Forum certainly has no objections to panelists or
arbitrators identifying their relationship to the Forum in advertising or
other materials.  I agree with J. Scott that no such policy is necessary.
If there were reason to limit use of such identification, it would
presumably be based on a contract between the parties and not trademark law.

It is not at all unusual for arbitrators to identify those organizations
with which they have an affiliation.

Timothy S. Cole
Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
National Arbitration Forum
651.604.6725
800.474.2371
tcole@arb-forum.com
www.arbitration-forum.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	J. Scott Evans [mailto:jse@adamspat.com] 
Sent:	Friday, January 17, 2003 10:53 AM
To:	John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [nc-udrp] DRP Trademarks?

John:

I am not aware of any policies nor do I believe any are necessary.

J. Scott
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] DRP Trademarks?


> > my review of the information you have provided
> > seems to fall within the parameters of fair use.
>
> I certainly agree with you, but that is not relevant to the question.
>
> My question whether DRP's have a policy, which presumably they would
require
> their panelists to agree.
>
> That is why I used the words "Do any of the DRP's have a policy on the use
of
> their trademarks in
> attorney advertising?"  If I had wondered whether a panelist could
identify
> themselves as such, I would have asked that question instead.
>
> I do not believe that if any of the DRP's had such a policy that action
> contrary to the policy would be deemed "fair use".  Conversely, in the
> absence of a policy to which panelists assented, then of course factual
> statements relevant to the provision of legal services are usually
> permissible in attorney advertising.
>
> Accordingly, the question is what, if any, policies are in place.
Elsewhere
> Mr. Mansfield seems to have taken offense to the question, calling it a
> "ludicrous" analysis.  They always told me in school that the only "dumb
> question" is the one which is not asked.
>
> John
>
>
>
>