[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: Fwd: [wg-b] Position Paper of Deborah Shelton from ArentFox
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [ga] Re: Fwd: [wg-b] Position Paper of Deborah Shelton from ArentFox
- From: James Touton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:45:19 -0800
- CC: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
- Organization: INEGroup Legal advisory and policy council
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <38512150.6B26E2DD@netzero.net> <38512C29.8212F9EE@ix.netcom.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
Jeff and WG-B folks,
I am not sure Jeff or Harald how this would or could "Hash Out" as you put it
Jeff, but I do have some ideas that maybe the Non-Commercial folks as well
as Individual Domain Name owners may want to consider.
- First of all despite some trepidation ongoing in the EU on "Famous Marks"
I agree that the US is likely to lead in getting their definition as it applies
to Domain Names.
- I would also agree with what Brian has indicated privately to you and I Jeff
that the EU will distinct definition considerations for "Famous Marks" due
to the ccTLD considerations and a culture difference. I understand that
from reading some of the FCC documents that this seem likely at this time
despite pressure from the US on the EU.
- A legal forum is really not in place to globally to deal directly with these
issues yet, and it will as you say, Jeff, be some time before that is in place.
- Given the above "Bullets" I would say that it would be unwise legally to
pursue settlement of Domain Name disputes using the UDRP, as you
Jeff submitted to ICANN and WIPO some time ago now in INEGroup's
So to finnish this off, the proposal that the Non-Commercial folks have
put forward is in line with current events in this arena of "Famous Marks"
most especially, and with Trade Marks in general, as the Dennison case
Judges ruling, in detail very directly pointed out. Creating a additional
legal entity or "Court" if you will to handle this problem is a bigger problem
than having the Trade Mark holders of Domain names doing it themselves,
which is their legal responsibility.
The only possible exception to this that I could see being feasible is one
that provides for a phasing in of such a body, with grand fathering of existing
Domain Names exclusionary. But I doubt that this will be possible in the
Jeff Williams wrote:
> James, Harald and all,
> I also find myself in agreement with James and Harald here as well.
> My concern is that the EU, although well on it's way to consolidation
> has some legal issues in this area that will take some time to hash out,
> and that any unified position could actually lag US efforts, as strange
> as that might sound. How than does this fit in with the UDRP, and
> "Famous Marks" as they relate to the proposal and current DN pending
> or possibly pending disputes jurisdictionally?
> James Touton wrote:
> > Harald, Jeff and Milton,
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > > At 01:11 10.12.99 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > >Harald and all,
> > > >
> > > > No doubt that the "Famous Mark" owners or those think that they are
> > > >owners, will do as Milton suggested. The counter will likely be the
> > > >Dennison case, in which Dennison basically claimed that they had a
> > > >"Famous Mark" which the judge disagreed.
> > > >
> > > > As for the EU screaming, I doubt this on a general basis. The EU
> > > >is not strongly by any means in ICANN's camp at present.
> > >
> > > No - it is not terribly interested in ICANN at all - but it has a visceral
> > > reaction to the US Govt. deciding global issues unilaterally.
> > Indeed this is true. But given the recent squabbles between France
> > and Germany in the telecommunications mega-mergers wars, I doubt that
> > the EU will be very interested until they are consolidated or that all washes
> > out. That could take a while.
> > >
> > >
> > > If the trademark lobby is smart, it'll push for BOTH EU and US protection -
> > > the best defense against that is to try to insist that the EU should have
> > > an unified position on famous marks before imposing anything on others....?
> > Maybe yes here, Harald. Brian Hollingsworth, our man in the EU,
> > seems to be of the opinion that the EU needs to have distinct differences
> > in how it defines and considers "Famous Marks" vs the US. The US, as
> > you know has struggled with identification of "Famous Marks" for
> > over 20 years, without much consensus.
> > >
> > >
> > > Harald
> > >
> > > --
> > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
> > James Touton
> > Legal and policy Advisory Council
> > INEGroup (Stakeholder)
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Legal and policy Advisory Council
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at