Re: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 15:38 22.10.99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >- All suggested mechanisms that ICANN could implement to protect famous 
> marks
> >   are either ineffective or harmful to the development of commercial and
> >   non-commercial use of the Internet
>
>
>Why would the exclusion of third-party registration of kodak.firm from the
>.firm TLD be ineffective in protecting the KODAK mark?

According to arguments raised here:
- Because it does not give Kodak ownership kodak-film.firm, kodiak.firm,
   kodak-is-great.firm, kodak-competition.firm and so forth.
- Because if protection of "kodak.firm" only using a "famous mark" mechanism
   is MUCH more expensive to the community than Kodak simply registering
   kodak.firm, if necessary challenging a preexisting holder under UDRP.


>Why would the prohibition of third-party registration of ebay.firm be
>harmful to the development of commercial use of the Internet?  It seems as
>if the ability of the consumer to trust the fact that ebay.firm or
>kodak.biz were associated with the owners of those famous trademarks would
>aid, not hinder commercial use of the Internet.

Prohibition of alternatives-to-ebay.firm or nicEBAYviews.firm would be 
harmful to the development of commercial use of the Internet, IMHO.
I do not see prohibition of ebay.firm as significantly harmful, but see no 
benefit in prohibiting it by famous-mark rather than registration.


> >- UDRP will significantly reduce the cost to the "famous mark" holders of
> >   protecting their marks against clear cases of cyberpiracy compared to
> >   the curent situation
>
>Is your goal to increase the cost?

No, as seen above. Any increase in business cost is eventually passed back 
to the consumer, so, IMHO, if a famous-mark protection is more expensive 
than the value of the benefits gained, it should not be implemented.


> >- A few more years of discussion in non-Internet fora about how to decide
> >   what marks are internationally famous or not is likely to lead to
> >   conclusions, and ICANN should not attempt to guess at these conclusions
> >   at the present time; doing so might even harm, delay or bias the
> >   non-Internet process for reaching conclusions in this matter.
>
>Red herring.

Note the dates of "substantive guidelines for the famousness of famous 
marks" quoted in http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/wiponote.html.
Change in the IP world is a fact.

                       Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no