RE: [wg-b] What WG-B is supposed to be doing (RE: Arbitration)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 09:05 24.09.99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:


>Aside from the fact that AT&T may argue with that move, I don't see the
>relevance. The issue is "famous marks" and I simply can't find a legal
>definition for them.


See the Paris Convention. Chapter and verse are in the WIPO report.
Copies available from an UN office near you, I guess; otherwise, you could 
always ask WIPO. (That's where I got mine).


>  What's a famous mark and what isn't? If I, as a
>registry, deny a registration, on what grounds do I base such a denial?

That's why I think it's unworkable for ICANN to do anything about them 
*now*: The procedures remain to be worked out in court.

>To put it more clearly, if the makers of Olymia Beer (old weak dish
>suds, I know) want a web-site called OLYMPIA.COM, and the Olympic
>Committee has a hissy-fit over it, why should I get stuck in the middle?
>I don't like the beer, nor do I like the Olympic Committee. The beer is
>weak and the OC rots on trees. It gets worse with gTLDs.

Welcome to the Famous Mark Fanclub :-)

                   Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no