RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

For me, at least, the second point is the killer and it is fed by the first.
Without a legally definitive list, of famous marks, there is too much legal
risk (second point) for a registry to excersize any sort of exclusionary
policies. Answer the second and you might gain the third.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Hartman, Steve
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 7:08 AM
> To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement
>
>
> I regret I cannot agree with the first. Reasonable criteria can be
> formulated for defining a famous mark for the limited purpose of an
> exclusionary rule. The second is probably right; it would
> depend in large
> part on how many marks are deemed famous. I agree with the third.
>
> Steve Hartman
> Nabisco, Inc.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald@alvestrand.no]
> > Sent:	Wednesday, December 15, 1999 2:22 AM
> > To:	wg-b@dnso.org
> > Subject:	[wg-b] Points of agreement
> >
> > It seems universally agreed that:
> >
> > - Famous marks are not defined to the point where one can
> make a list of
> > them.
> >    Existence proof: The list doesn't exist.
> >
> > - Exclusions have to be applied mechanically, or they would
> >    a) increase the cost of registrations by requiring human judgment
> >    b) unacceptably increase the liability of registrars/registries
> >
> > - Exclusions of all instances of a famous mark as a
> substring in a domain
> >    name will exclude names that a court would not uphold
> the exclusion of.
> >    (existence point: tenNISSANdiego. Example point: i-hate-oreos)
> >
> > If these 3 points are agreed, I think we're moving slightly forward.
> >
> >                                 Harald A
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>