Re: [wg-b] RESPONSE to submission from noncommercial community

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

At 1:24 PM +0100 12/10/99, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>I was surprised to see the absence of the word 'consumer' or ordinary net
>'user' in the submission of the non-commercial constituency. The reason for
>special consideration for famous names is that it is these names that are
>ripped off and pirated. The real loser is the consumer who wants to buy
>goods or services via e-commerce.


Consumers are smart enough to realize that if they go to a "famous 
mark" URL and find that the web site promotes either a non infringing 
product, or a contrary opinion or commentary regarding the "famous 
mark" company, they won't be "confused as to the source of a product 
or service."  Trying to couch protection for large corporations as 
"consumer protection" is, in my opinion, not legitimate.

>
>The objective behind WG B is consumer protection. Protecting intellectual
>property is a strategy to complete that objective. For example, when a net
>consumer sends credit card details to Disney, that consumer expects it
>really is Disney who owns the web site, that it is Disney who will send the
>goods, and that Disney will be there to seek redress when nothing arrives.


And current laws of infringement, dilution and consumer fraud take 
care of those instances just fine.  Make no mistake about it, large 
corporations seek a "set aside" that benefits no one but them. 
Consumers who wish to post opinions of problems with companies who 
have "famous marks" should have the right to use that name in the URL 
in order to bring an audience to their grievances.

>
>By contributing to DNSO discussion we all have a duty to avoid creating the
>world's greatest opportunity for thieves, pirates and fraudsters. This is
>why WG B is important.

Yes, we do.  Definitely.  The thieves, pirates and fraudsters may 
well be the large corporations who seek to shut down criticism, use 
of names by dealers, and other permitted uses under international 
trademark laws.