[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words
What about Champagne?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:12 PM
> To: KathrynKL@aol.com; mpalage@infonetworks.com; wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words
>
>
> At 13:44 02.12.99 -0500, KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
>
> I don't think anyone has advocated moving in the direction of
> making this
> group work with noncommercial marks. We're merely (I think)
> exchanging
> information about categories that may abut or overlap with
> the "famous
> marks" category.
>
> So far, getting the rough consensus that "statutorily
> protected marks in
> the US only intersect the space of famous marks by accident,
> if at all" is
> a reasonable thing to spend a few messages on.
>
> BTW, I think the mandate of the group is defined in terms of
> famous marks
> as defined by the Paris convention and TRIPS treaty; the only
> mark I have
> heard mentioned on the list that has successfully been
> defended in the US
> based on these treaties is "Cognac", which is not a trademark.
>
> Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>