[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-b] RE: Arbitration (RE: (wg-b) food for thought)

This is incorrect. WG-B is chartered to *consider* famous marks in domain names.
The word "protection" is not in its title. It could arrive at any of a variety
of  conclusions--it could conclude that famous marks are threatened by TLD
expansion and support the exclusion proposals of WIPO. It could conclude that
there is no problem and recommend doing nothing; it could fall somewhere in
between. Let's have a rational discussion of the alternatives and stop
caricaturing the policies you disagree with as undermining trademark rights.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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?
> Regards,
> Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:29 PM
> Cc: wg-b@dnso.org
> 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
> protected.
> randy