Re: [wg-b] Famous Trademarks

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Whether it would work operationally or not is irrelevant.
There's no need for it. Private, market-based transactions between
rgeistries and TM owners can -- and already are-- accomplishing the same
thing.

--MM

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >