RE: [wg-b] wg-b

[Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [SMTP:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 06, 2000 06:46
> To:	eileen kent; measday@ibm.net; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc:	wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject:	Re: [wg-b] wg-b
> 
> > on the list, to whom does it appeal this decision? On what is the
> decision
> > based? Michael Palage talked about a
> > combination of objective and subjective. How can you form a list if
> there
> > has been no determination of the objective requirements? Or can you?
> Or
> did
> > you? We have never managed to define fame.
> 
> Factors constituting a "famous mark" for dilution purposes have been
> developed in a number of legal decisions, and these factors are well
> known
> to any trademark attorney.  There's no need to re-invent the wheel on
> what
> constitutes a famous mark.  If any other definition is used, of
> course, then
> that definition means nothing under U.S. law.  The holders of famous
> U.S.
> marks will be suing under U.S. law.
> 
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

Presumably non-US holders of famous marks will be persuing recourse
under other legal systems.
The list of famous marks has to stand up to legal scrutiny under every
relevant legal system, all at the same time.
The only list I can see which could withstand that kind of scrutiny has
a length of zero.