RE: [wg-b] Famous Trademarks

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

It was not a proposal. I was postulating an outer boundary. It is
intentionally as extreme as practical. From a registry operational view,
I could live with it. However, that doesn't mean that I'd like it much.

Now, please tell me why it wouldn't work.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> d3nnis
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 9:24 PM
> To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; peter.weiss@chanelusa.com; wg-b@dnso.org;
> mpalage@infonetworks.com
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] Famous Trademarks
>
>
> The system you're proposing to build here is basically a
> new form of administrative law court -- run by a computer.
>
> Won't work.
>
> ----------
> > >Behalf Of peter.weiss@chanelusa.com
> > > Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:50 PM
> > >
> > > As my first contribution to this stimulating debate, let me
> > > say that defining what constitutes a famous trademark is
> > > neither the easiest nor the most difficult task in the world.
> >
> > Okay, let's see ...
> >
> > > with the needs of contemporary commerce." Anyone wanting to
> > > know what that common set of principles is needs only to do a
> > > quick run through the 700 pages of Fred's encyclopaedic work.
> > > (Mostert, Famous and Well-Known Marks, Butterworths, 1997).
> >
> > Oxymoronic phrase: "quick run through the 700 pages" and
> "encyclopaedic
> > ", you were joking, right? Legalese doesn't speed-read
> well. In fact,
> > it's usually a sure cure for insomnia. BTW, please include ISBN with
> > book references.
> >
> > > look at a fourth category, i.e. absolutely unique famous
> > > marks (AUFMs). Here's a quick and totally non-exhaustive
> > > list: COCA-COLA, PEPSI-COLA, MERCEDES BENZ, CHANEL,
> > > PERRIER-JOUET, KODAK, EXXON, TEXACO, THENEWYORKTIMES. All of
> > > you will instantly have recognized what these marks have
> > > in common: The fact that no one could possible have a valid
> > > good faith claim against any of them. Oh sure, somebody could
> > > legitimately claim COLA or MERCEDES
> >
> > This sounds good, until you start looking a new and
> emerging AUFMs. Who
> > maintains the list and under what rules?
> >
> > > Do I have any thoughts on how to reach consensus? Not today,
> > > thank you. That's a really difficult problem. Peter Weiss
> >
> > I might suggest something that would immediately get my vote.
> >
> > 1) Set up a service, which I could get to in the Internet
> (a server) and
> > a protocol. The business model would work like this;
> > 2) For a fee you would indemnify MHSC's registry from all claims
> > revolving around domain name denial, wrt trademark issues.
> > 3) You put up a server that will respond with the relevent
> data withing
> > 30 seconds.
> > 4) I tie my registration process into it. If your server says that a
> > proposed name can not be used, MHHSC will reject the registration.
> >
> > I would gladly pay a percentage, of the registration
> revenues, for such
> > a service. But, if I spend one dime, on a trademark case,
> because your
> > information is bad, or the algorithm was wrong, you will be
> sued, count
> > on it. Likewise, if a customer is denied a name because
> your system gave
> > a false-positive, we will also wind up in court. Actually, I will
> > probably send the disgruntled applicant in your direction, as well.
> >
> > My point here is that many folks are real quick to make
> suggestions, for
> > the registry, yet have aboslutely no clue when it comes to
> being in the
> > "liability ground-zero zone", with your mortgage depending
> on it. Chuck
> > Gomes pointed that out to me once, three years ago.
> >
> >
>
>