[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Re: Nature of answer to question B
At 15:38 22.10.99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >- All suggested mechanisms that ICANN could implement to protect famous
> > are either ineffective or harmful to the development of commercial and
> > non-commercial use of the Internet
>Why would the exclusion of third-party registration of kodak.firm from the
>.firm TLD be ineffective in protecting the KODAK mark?
According to arguments raised here:
- Because it does not give Kodak ownership kodak-film.firm, kodiak.firm,
kodak-is-great.firm, kodak-competition.firm and so forth.
- Because if protection of "kodak.firm" only using a "famous mark" mechanism
is MUCH more expensive to the community than Kodak simply registering
kodak.firm, if necessary challenging a preexisting holder under UDRP.
>Why would the prohibition of third-party registration of ebay.firm be
>harmful to the development of commercial use of the Internet? It seems as
>if the ability of the consumer to trust the fact that ebay.firm or
>kodak.biz were associated with the owners of those famous trademarks would
>aid, not hinder commercial use of the Internet.
Prohibition of alternatives-to-ebay.firm or nicEBAYviews.firm would be
harmful to the development of commercial use of the Internet, IMHO.
I do not see prohibition of ebay.firm as significantly harmful, but see no
benefit in prohibiting it by famous-mark rather than registration.
> >- UDRP will significantly reduce the cost to the "famous mark" holders of
> > protecting their marks against clear cases of cyberpiracy compared to
> > the curent situation
>Is your goal to increase the cost?
No, as seen above. Any increase in business cost is eventually passed back
to the consumer, so, IMHO, if a famous-mark protection is more expensive
than the value of the benefits gained, it should not be implemented.
> >- A few more years of discussion in non-Internet fora about how to decide
> > what marks are internationally famous or not is likely to lead to
> > conclusions, and ICANN should not attempt to guess at these conclusions
> > at the present time; doing so might even harm, delay or bias the
> > non-Internet process for reaching conclusions in this matter.
Note the dates of "substantive guidelines for the famousness of famous
marks" quoted in http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/wiponote.html.
Change in the IP world is a fact.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway