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

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

As the alternate approach discussed below is passive, it should be viewed
as supplemental to, rather than an
alternative to an active notice procedure.  There is certainly the
technological ability to provide the DN owner with a lot of information as
to its
potential rights.  However a passive-only situation allows for the DN owner
to sink money into the DN under the (perhaps self-imposed guise) of
ignorance, and then using that expenditure as an equitable argument.



At 03:06 PM 9/7/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Martys wrote:
>>  The primary advantage of immediate notification to the DN owner of the TM
>>  owner's claim, is that it can make a more informed decision (and resolve a
>>  dispute) before it has sunk money into the name.  The notification to the
>>  TM owner is a secondary aspect to this
>
>Alternate approach to help DN holders:
>Urge each registrar to provide a link to the Trademark Office database of
the 
>countries it works with most often with a note that domain name holders are 
>urged to run their proposed domain names through a search to see if they 
>overlap with existing marks registered to other users in the same line of 
>commercial goods and services.  To be fair, I would also include a note (to 
>prevent undue concern) that noncommercial speech is not the subject for 
>trademark infringement or dilution claims under US (fill in the blank 
>country) laws.
>
>kathy kleiman
>> 
>>  The primary advantage of immediate notification to the DN owner of the TM
>>  owner's claim, is that it can make a more informed decision (and resolve a
>>  dispute) before it has sunk money into the name.  The notification to the
>>  TM owner is a secondary aspect to this - the cost of a cc on the email to
>>  the DN registrant is minimal and there is a benefit but to me, putting the
>>  DN registrant on notice is the primary rationale - and much more useful
>>  than a passive whois (see Roeland Meyers' post), as it is evidence of
>>  actual notice.
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @