RE: [wg-b] Famous Trademarks

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

What you are saying here is there is no effective indemnifacation
mechanism to support any sort of exclusionary practice? I tend to agree,
but let us hear from the practicing attorneys out there.

Failing to find a comprehensive indemnifacation mechanism, I can NOT
support any sort of exclusionary practice with regards to famous marks,
or any other marks. This includes any sort of arbitration as well. If I
am going to wind up in court anyway, I'd rather do it under
circumstances that allow me to duck and avoid the big pieces. Such as,
pointing the judge at the two warring parties and let the judge tell me
about the results, after the blood-letting has been done. As a registry,
I don't want any part of that fight.

> Behalf Of d3nnis
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 1:05 AM
>
> Because simply indemnifying someone against liability
> doesn't transfer
> their responsibility in the matter.
>
> In this case, where the 'cybercourt' potentially may be
> depriving people
> of property rights, of due process rights, or of free speech,
>  it will be
> highly vulnerable to suits for which indemnification may actually be
> irrelevant.
> ----------
> > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>