[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] US Statutorily Protected Marks
Whilst seeing the point of Harald's comment and your analysis below, I don't
understand why a mischevious lawyer cannot invoke US treaty obligations under the
international conventions to ensure that these statutorily protected marks are just
that, abroad. If the law protects these, then either you must change the law, change
the list, or respect it. No?
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Many of these statutorily protected marks are associated with US government
> organizations and reflect a legitimate interest in squelching confusion or
> deception related to the delivery of basic governmental services, such as Social
> Security Administration or the Commodity Credit Corporation. But this kind of
> protection cannot and should not be extended globally, because these marks lack
> any special meaning outside one specific national jurisdiction.
> The other issue that this list brings out is how such a process is bound to
> become subject to political favoritism and/or political sacred cows, such as
> veterans organizations that no politician in his right mind would challenge. How
> famous, after all, is the Paralyzed Veterans of America or the Grand Army of the
> Republic? I doubt that most Americans have heard of these organizations.
> Special exclusions are a nuclear weapon when it comes to DNS. They are costly,
> highly destructive and generate lots of fallout. Their use should be limited to
> the narrowest range possible.
> These lists of nationally famous marks tell us next to nothing about how to
> handle the problem globally, especially when, as in the US case, the criteria
> for generating them are entirely legislative and political rather than objective
> or judicial.
adr;quoted-printable:;;pa Reich & Zen-Ruffinen=0D=0A72 bd St Georges=0D=0A=0D=0A;Geneva;;CH-1205;Switzerland