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

[eileen kent <eileenk@enteract.com>]

At 08:58 AM 9/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
>
>I welcome someone speaking out on this list in favour of famous marks; so 
>far, it has been almost as if the strong advocates of such had left the WG 
>to us who dislike the concept.

My theory: Most advocates of strong trademark protections are lawyers.
Lawyers, with the exception of litigators, are the silent types.  Anything
you reveal may be used against you. Wait for discovery and keep quiet.
Michael might be an exception but I believe he was an engineer before he
was a lawyer.  Lawyers are lurking, Harald, they haven't left the list. 

I am a proponent of protecting famous marks. However, I am also a
pragmatist. To grant mark holders the right to control a stand alone string
is fairly meaningless. Viacom and Playboy and Coca-Cola and every other
famous name will automatically register that string in every new gltd that
becomes available. The only way an exclusion is meaningful is if it applies
to the string within a domain name. And it is just not practical to do that. 

Why I believe in giving special considerations to famous names:

1) Fairness--or unfairness really. A famous name gets to be famous for a
variety of reasons. It flies in the face of hard work and history to allow
people to take advantage of someone else's name. 

2) Consumers should be protected from fraud. It's good for the internet.

My opinions have been influenced by these discussions. It's been a good
experience.

eileen