Re: [wg-b] RE: (wg-b) Issues to Consider

[Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

Mr. Alvestrand's quote below makes for a good sound bite, but its simply not true.

888 replication was never a function of trademark protection, but rather of
misdial protection.  Replication was granted to 800 users without regard to
tm-status of the 800 number or its alpha vanity portion.

Numbers that spelled something could be and were replicated.  Numbers that spelled
nothing, could be and were replicated.  Replication orders were accepted only in
numeric form, not alpha form.  The replication set-aside database was maintain
only in numeric form as well.

Trademark interests did petition the FCC for replication for trademark protection,
and the FCC reply confirmed its consistent stance that trademark issues should be
resolved by the courts:

FCC CC Docket No. 95-155 Toll Free Service Access Codes ) , FOURTH REPORT AND
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM  OPINION AND ORDER , Adopted: March 27, 1998 Released: March
31, 1998, Para 7.:

"Although we recognize commenters' concerns regarding trademark infringement and
unfair competition, we find that those issues properly should be addressed by the
courts under the trademark protection and unfair competition laws, rather than by
the Commission."

Hense 877 was not granted replication.

Judith

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> >    The 800 number example discussed on this list is a good real
> >      world example of how this process can work to ultimately protect
> >      consumers from confusion and fraud.
> >

--
Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com