RE: [wg-b] food for thought

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Judith,

I feel that I must thank you. Your recent postings have been very
enlightening. I have been in the telco businesss for a while and still
was not aware of some of these permutations. What is particularly
interesting is the continuous insistance, by the FCC, that the court
system is the best venue for resolution. The FCC has resisted the urge
to pre-empt the courts, via some form of arbitration policy. I believe
that you've strengthend the resolve of many, that arbitration,
especially mandatory arbitration, is a "bad thing".

With regards to trademarks, the only relevent authority is the court
systems. Any pre-filtering, of access to the relevent authority, is
actually a disservice to the user community. They will make their
displeasure known to the only easy target of liability, the registry and
its operators. Only a "Bell" could withstand that level of displeasure
and survive fiscally. Even NSI does not have that level of fiscal
robustness.

Famous marks, because they are famous, also have the wherewithall to
defend their marks. Start-up enterprises do not have this, but they also
do not yet have a mark, or brand, to defend yet. The issue of
"cyber-squatting" is often brought out to enforce the opposing
arguement. However, no one has yet shown how to tell the difference
between a squatter and a legitimate startup. It's mostly a matter of
intent and intent is extremely mercurial. Sufficiently so that the
registry operator can not tell without investing, relatively enormous
funds, in the relevent research. Evenso, it is still not definitive. I
submit that this is the function of the relevent PTO (Patent and
Trademark Office) in any case, devolving to a court battle, in the event
of a severe conflict.

Compared to this, the simple policy, of First-Come-First-Served (FCFS),
is looking more attractive by the minute. Also, exclusionary policies
appear to be an open-door to bankruptcy, with one exception. The
registry requires the presentation of a registered trademark of the same
name as the new domain, from the registrant. In this case, the real
effective registry becomes the local PTO. This would "clear" the name
before it enters the DNS and shifts liability to the PTO, rather than
the registry.

--------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://www.mhsc.com/
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------
[Note: I am NOT a Lawyer (IANAL) my legal opinion has NO STANDING in
court, as I am NOT an officer of the court. No statement made herein
constitutes legal advice under ANY circumstances. The reader is directed
to seek the advice of competent legal council in all matters of law.]
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Judith Oppenheimer
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 6:46 AM
> To: wg-b@dnso.org; bwg-n-friends@fibertron.com
> Subject: [wg-b] food for thought
>
>
> When U.S. Toll Free Users - 95% of the freephone population -
> petitioned
> for trademark protection of its 7-digit U.S. format vanity numbers in
> the 8-digit Universal International Freephone Number (UIFN)
> scheme that
> (mis)appropriated the U.S. 800 brand to begin, the international
> corporate and trademark community overwhelmingly voted no.
>
> Despite consumer confusion that could be caused by two different 800
> codes labeled toll free, they argued that because the formats
> following
> the 800 code were different (7 digits U.S. vs. 8 digits
> UIFN), trademark
> and brand infringement were a non-issue for U.S. users.
>
> Where is that point of view on the part of the international tm
> community now?
>
> Judith
>
> --
> 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