Re: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

Hmm, I think you are missing my point as well, Mike?
I am trying to say that the statutes that protect Smokey Bear and Olympics 
are NOT the statutes we should be using as a basis for the protection of 
famous marks.  These statutes are not trademark law -- the involvement the 
registration of certain ** noncommercial ** words for public policy reasons.  
These public policy reasons are distinct and different (and provide a 
protection far broader) than trademark protection -- for basic or famous 
marks. 

If this group goes too broad, we will lose our mandate, our support and our 
intent.  The cybersquatting/UDRP looked at protection for trademarks 
(commercial marks);' the WIPO report looked at protection for famous marks 
(as commercial marks).  If we want any type of mandate in what we are doing, 
this group must stay within the scope of previous work and deal with 
commercial protection of famous marks.  
 
Many of the noncommercial organizations with "famous marks" have trademarks 
-- and it is the trademark arena we have been delegated.

kathy kleiman 

> However, I believe you missed the point I was trying to raise. In your
>  original e-mail you stated:
>  
>  [KK:] I am surprised to find this Working Group moving forward with 
researching
>  protection for NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS such as Federal Parks and 
Veteran
>  Associations, etc.
>  
>  The intention of my original reply is that all famous marks, whether owned
>  by a for-profit or non-profit organization are entitled to protection under
>  our Working Group mandate. As I have been reminded, non-profit, does not
>  mean for free. I would argue that a great number of non-profit 
organizations
>  rely heavily upon the value of the their trademark in sponsorship and fund
>  raising activities. I believe it could be argued that these organizations
>  should be entitled to greater protection because they do not have the deep
>  pockets to fund expensive litigation. Every dollar that a non-profit spends
>  in legal fees is one less dollar that is available to the non-profit's
>  cause.
>