Re: The Fame Claim List -was [wg-b] notification as compromise?

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

It's a little early for a drafting session but I would imagine that notice
might include the following elements:

A positive statement that the notice is from the list keeper.
A negative statement that the notice is not from the claimant.
A statement that the notice is for informational purposes and is not an
assertion of legal harm.
A statement that the list keeper has not verified the accuracy of the
contents of the attached fame claim.
A link to the DN registration FAQs (see previous posts).

You raise another point - the TM owner is as interested in not unduly
alarming an obviously non-infringing usage as a non-infringing user is
interested in not being unduly alarmed.  If certain TLDs were obviously
non-commercial (I don't mean merely chartered, I mean the suffix indicates
that it is non-com (as in .fan or .sux or .noncom)) then the fame claimant
may elect not to have its claim sent to registrants in that particular TLD.





At 10:59 AM 9/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
>> Well - that's a good point.  Perhaps the fame claim notification could
>> indicate that it was computer-generated, so when smupets.com get the
>> automatic notice, they think to themselves: "no big deal."  
>
>history would seem to indicate that, when the smu pet lovers get a nasty
>letter, they are generally not encouraged to think "no big deal."  perhaps
>this is partially because the letters are specifically designed to seem
>like very big and nasty deals, and meant to scare the living daylights out
>of anyone who is not a trademark attorney.
>
>> See above comment.  the fame claim notice would be automatic and perhaps
>> should have language that it is NOT a legal demand, which could be sent
>> only by a representative of the Fame Claimant.  
>
>e.g.
>
>"Excuse.  Sorry to bother, but I am a quite fallible computer program
>running at your favorite domain name registrar's.  You registered
>smupets.com, and I note that this could me similar to the registered
>name muppets.com.  There are many circumstances under which this would
>be perfectly legitimate and reasonable.  There are others where it would
>not.  The folk over at muppets.com will be receiving a notice similar to
>this one, and may take the time to think about whether your and their uses
>are in conflict.  I just thought you might find it useful to be warned that
>this could be happening."
>
>randy
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @