[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] RE: Arbitration (RE: (wg-b) food for thought)
What does that mean, Randy? "attempting to decide if they, for some
definition, be protected"? I don't understand.
Working Group B is about protection of Famous Marks. Let's get
clarification on whether that is the purpose. Perhaps we have some
misunderstanding of the purpose of the group.
On the other hand, are you saying that there isn't a need to protect famous
marks? that we don't care about consumers and their reliance on brands, such
as Verio, who you work for, or AT&T, who I work for? Consumers count on
brands wherever they find them-offline or online. If Verio doesn't care
about its brand, this is their choice. But most of us do care about our
brands, and intend to ensure that consumers/users can trust them. At my
company, we take this responsibility seriously.
so, we start from there.
And we are participating in Working Group b with the understanding that it
is about protecting famous marks. If that is not the agenda, then we have a
dialectic which must be addressed.
I suspect that I am not alone in that assumption. does anyone else out there
think this is about how we protect famous brands?
From: Randy Bush [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:29 PM
To: DEUTSCH, SARAH B.
Subject: Re: [wg-b] RE: Arbitration (RE: (wg-b) food for thought)
> I thought we were supposed to working on protecting famous marks in this
> working group.
i think we're also attempting to decide if they, for some definition, be