[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[comments-wipo] On Dillution...
>I am not an attorney but I have read a great deal about trademarks, etc.
>It is my impression that a trademark or servicemark owner has an
>obligation to make sure that their mark does not become so generic
>that people forget there is a company behind it. Xerox copies and
>Kleenex tissues seem to be common examples used. People convert
>the adjective (the mark) to a noun with phrases like, "I will make a
>xerox of this page" or "please pass me a kleenex".
>In looking through the recent survey of the Top 2,048 DLDs (Dash Level
>Domains) currently registered in the .COMmercial realm, it occurs to
>me that people in general have been "self-policing" and have gravitated
>to the some very generic nouns to be used to create their cybermarks.
>If it is true that trademark law requires the trademark owner to be on
>the look-out for their mark becoming commonplace, then I would think
>that large companies would NOT want their mark to be used as a noun.
>This of course presents a problem. As shown below, we have three
>rather famous names. This small sample represents hundreds of places
>which are using these names for various purposes.
>I am curious how one thinks they can police this one small part of
>and what they will acheive if they do. On the other hand, if a list such as
>one above were adopted by governments as dilluted names with NO
>famous name protection, then the companies above might become concerned.
>I am not sure there are any magic bullet solutions for all this...
>[ As an aside, somewhere there is a list of "generic words" that
>have been negotiated by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico for use
>in all contracts involving one or more of the countries. I mention
>this because some people might think that it is far-fetched for
>a government to select a list of words as generic. ]