Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs

["Rod Dixon" <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I think TM lawyers have come to understand that the taxonomy is of rare
significance when it comes to TM infringement issues. (It may be another
matter entirely regarding TM registration).



Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
rod@cyberspaces.org
http://www.cyberspaces.org



----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Measday <measday@ibm.net>
To: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs


> Why is a currently relevant taxonomy not proposed? Beacuise the standard
tm categories are outdated and need to be revised and there is is no consent
to the revision? It seems to me naively that tm categories can be mapped or
not. Agreement to that mapping may be a separate matter. One would have
assumed that enterprising tm lawyers would have leapt into this conceptual
gap to grasp the offered rewards. Why is this not so, then? Is it that the
rewards of such an inefficient taxonomy to its immediate users are in fact
greater than those of an efficient one? ( A purely hypothetical statement of
Kantian reason, not
> observation, I would note.)