Re: [wg-b] Reality checks [the grateful dead(hits)]

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

HartmanS@Nabisco.com writes:
>  For the sake of completeness, I would add that I can find nothing improper
>  on the face of it with Porsche objecting to porschebank.com or
>  porschelynn.com, or the Academy objecting to theoscars.com. Nothing in 
these
>  domain name is a clear message.

Based on your message, I fear you are setting an new standard for protection 
of marks.  Rather than requiring the trademark owner to show infringement 
(with the shorthand version being proof of "likelihood of confusion") or 
rather than having the famous mark owner show dilution under by the Paris 
Convention (shorthand version:  that the diluter is using the mark on 
"identical or similar goods"), you would like the trademark owner to show 
only that someone is using "their word" and leave the burden of proof to the 
domain name holder to prove their innocence e.g,  not infringing or diluting. 

Such an approach is clean and easy, but it will create tremendous problems 
with all the independent Porsche Repair Garages and with independent Oreo 
distributors.  Under law, they have rights to use even famous marks and even 
in commercial settings.   Needless to say, it creates tremendous problems for 
free speech by making someone the monitor upfront for what is a legitimate 
communicative message using the word "oreo" or "porsche" in it. 

Also, the approach is not consistent with the equities built into current 
law. The burden of proof, and the showings, under both sovereign laws and 
treaties, rests with the trademark owner. 

Kathy Kleiman 

>