Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 12:48 30-07-99 -0400, Rita M. Odin wrote:

>Please try to remember that the legitimate TM owners are the "innocent" 
>party here.  Why are they required to go above and beyond the call of duty 
>to proactively prevent infringement of their rights?

Let's try to keep in focus the rights of consumers *not to be* mislead by a 
similar name, trade dress, etc.

Jane likes to use "Sweet and Low" sweetener in her coffee and ice tea.  It 
is packaged in a pink package with pale blue printing on it.  Some people 
think it could be carcinogenic.  She thinks otherwise.

However, of late, we've discovered that many restaurants have what *looks 
like* Sweet and Low, same hue of pink paper, same hue of pale blue 
ink.  But they are *not* Sweet and Low.  We have discovered at least three 
of these imitation products.

Should she not be protected from the perpetrators of the confusion?  Should 
she be forced to determine whether these imitators' products are 
non-carcinogenic?

The consumer has the right to this protection.  Unfortunately, U.S. law 
forces the legitimate Trademark holder to police the market place *to 
protect the consumer* at the expense of the Trademark holder.

Regards, BobC



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One test is worth three expert opinions!"
Ulric B. Bray