[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-b] RE: Arbitration (RE: (wg-b) food for thought)
I thought we were supposed to working on protecting famous marks in this
group. The proactive exclusion can and will work. I believe that a
expert group of decisionmakers, using the WIPO standards, can come up with a
list of famous marks. There should be no overall cap -- because famous
are always in the making. The proactive exclusion would apply to the exact
or extremely close variations (e.g., BellAtlantic.firm, Bell-Atlantic.firm)
would afford the trademark owner the right to secure its essential, famous
in the new gTLD space. Otherwise, what you are arguing is that
should have the right to confuse customers and engage in consumer fraud by
stealing exact duplications of famous marks in the new name spaces. There
already appear to be plenty of "business opportunities" for "entrepreneurs"
steal variations of famous marks at their own peril. Bell Atlantic submitted
documented evidence of the more than 1000 domain name infringements we
experienced for two of our marks in .com, .net and .org. This and other
evidence submitted by the trademark community to WIPO was far from
We're far too busy to waste our time with this process if cybersquatting
a huge and growing problem.
On the issue of determining what is a famous mark, of course it is risky for
involved if a mark does not make the list. I think we can compensate for
however, by creating a statement that failure to be included on the list of
famous marks does not imply that the mark is not famous or any other
______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Arbitration (RE: (wg-b) food for thought)
Author: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <SMTP:Harald@alvestrand.no> at GCOHUB
Date: 9/23/99 1:25 PM
At 09:17 23.09.99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>that you've strengthend the resolve of many, that arbitration,
>especially mandatory arbitration, is a "bad thing".
note: I had to have lessons during the WIPO process in the meaning of the
According to what I understood, an arbitration process is binding on the
participants - they can't go to court if they feel unfairly treated
(slightly variant across jurisdictions, but that's the gist of it).
A mediation process is "just someone helping you talk to each other", while
the proposed dispute resolution process is somewhere in between - sort of
like a pretrial court with the power to grant limited interim relief, where
the parties have the option of either accepting the judgment or taking the
dispute to court afterwards.
I think you will find lots of people agreeing with you that mandatory
arbitration (as described above) is a Bad Thing, which is why mandatory
arbitration is NOT being considered for the Dispute Resolution Process.
Disclaimer: I report only on my understanding. This may or may not have a
relationship to facts.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway