[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RE: (wg-b) Issues to Consider
In my consulting practice I see a lot of the following:
(1) big companies that want to buy 800 numbers (in violation of the 800
anti-brokering rules they helped put in place)
(2) smaller companies who's 800 numbers have been stolen by, or for, larger
(3) smaller companies being harassed by larger companies because they said
"no", or quoted too high(?), when approached "amicably" by the larger
company to buy their 800 number.
I realize its the job of trademark owners and their representatives to
promote trademark interests, but what is the point misrepresenting the
extent of the "extortionist" problem?
The strategy has not served trademark interests in the 800 arena at all.
Furthermore, what is the point of winning the trademark wars, if
*everyone's* domain name agreement, tm-owners and not, says, "You agree that
[XYZ Registrar] may, in [its] sole discretion, delete or transfer your
domain name at any time" ?
Dare I suggest that a focus-adjustment is in order? ICANN's STATEMENT OF
REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION POLICY, J. 7. i., moves domain name rights from ALL
end users to ICANN ... you might as well have no trademark at all ...
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> Hello Michelena Halle, Sarah Deutsch, et alia
> > assessment. Famous marks are particularly vulnerable to
> > third party abuse
> > precisely because of their fame: Recognizing the trademark
> > owner as a "deep
> > pocket" numerous members of the Internet have developed a
> > sophisticated practice of attempting to register famous marks in the
> hope of either
> > confusing the public or receiving exhorbitant sums from the
> > rightful owners.
> Yes, there is an extortion racket. it is by no means the only extortion
> racket. Monopolies are yet another extortion racket. That is why Bell
> Atlantic is regulated and Viacom should be. Now for the key question,
> how well is the WIPO process accepted by the various jurisdictions? If I
> follow that process will WIPO indemnify MHSC from all liabilities? The
> MHSC point of jurisdiction is State (DE), and Federal.(USA). Can I deny
> the Ford Motor Company, in favor of the Ford Modeling Agency, and
> neither one can sue me out of my corporate charter? As far as I know,
> this isn't the case. The issues I am bringing up is regarding
> defensibility of the registry. That's what's on the other end of this
> > The testimony gathered during the WIPO hearings abounds with
> > incidents of such misconduct. To require rightful trademark owners to
> > chase these clear infringers around the globe to protect their rights
> only succeeds in
> > rewarding the infringers. Such an impediment will only hurt
> > the internet since it will render it more difficult for trademark
> > and the public at large to rely on the medium for accurate
> Anacdotal evidence, while interesting, doesn't prove much. There is
> plenty of anacdotal evidence, regarding the abuses by trademark holders,
> as well. This fact repeated gets lost or disregarded, why is that?
> > Defining a famous mark is a complex process. However, WIPO
> > spent a great
> > deal of time and utilized a great deal of expertise to
> > provide us with a
> > practical process. That process should be endorsed and implemented.
> Get Judges and congress-critters to sign-off on the process and MHSC
> will be happy to follow it. Until then, I'm fitting MHSC out for a set
> of kevlar britches and I won't be excluding much.
> BTW, I note that there aren't a whole lot of even nacent registry
> operators on this list. Am I the only one from the RSC crowd?
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com