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

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

At 10:42 AM 9/8/99 EDT, you wrote:
>You are confusing generic and descriptive terms (ordinary dictionary words) 
>and coined and fanciful terms (coca cola).  the questions get much more 
>difficult if you deal with my examples, not yours.  

>The harm in all of this is your presumption that oridinary words -- like 
>apple and wendys -- are owned in gross (with all rights) by the trademark 
>owner.  They are not.  That's what the Avery decision (two weeks ago) said 
>and the Hasbro/Clue Computing decision said (this week).   the harm is that 
>your proposed notification system will lead to real people being scared away 
>from real domain names, real websites, and real speech. 
>

How precisely are the holdings of the Avery and Clue cases arguments
against putting DN registrants on notice of prior rights?

I'm actually quite clear on the differences between marks.  However I'm not
talking about the resolution of disputes, I'm advocating a procedure that
would mitigate disputes.  And the earlier that two parties are aware of
each other's existence, the easier it is to resolve a dispute.

As for people being scared away from Wendy's Zine because they get an
automatic message alerting them to the existence of Wendy's Hamburgers,
well, that's your speculation.  Of course if Wendyszine is in a designated
non-commercial TLD, maybe Wendy's Hamburger won't care.  And if its
wendyszine.biz, then Wendy is a big girl and let her make her own decisions.

And how are they scared away from real web sites and real speech because
they received a notice?  Be specific.

And if I believed that marks could be owned in gross, I would be in favor
of exclusions, not notifications.  

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @