[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] US Statutorily Protected Marks
My discussion, with Phil, was last VIRTUAL Friday. These occur prior do
National Holidays. In this case, it was actually last Wednesday, 24Nov99. We
discussed NSI's currently changing policy wrt filtering, at all levels.
Basically, Phil indicates that NSI is going to drop the practice for exactly
the reasons that I outline here (it's about time).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Roeland M.J. Meyer
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:23 AM
> To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] US Statutorily Protected Marks
> Actually, the point is made yet further, that only a
> government agency can
> get away with this type of filtering. In the USA, one has to
> have explicit
> permission to sue a goverment agency. For all intents and
> purposes, this
> makes them immune from litigation, except for some very persistent and
> expensive class-action suits. These suits take *years* just to get the
> required permissions.
> The point is that the US PTO is a trademark registry, it is ALSO a US
> government agency, under DOC (aka DOC/PTO). As such, it can
> filter with
> impunity, being practicably immune from litigation.
> This same circumstance does NOT apply to a DNS registry
> unless it is run
> under USG contract, to a USG agency, such as NSI. In fact,
> recent case-law
> has been excersized such that there is actual judicial
> opinion defending NSI
> filtering, based on exactly this precept. NSI was not held responsible
> BECAUSE it was working as a contractor to DOC/NTIA, a USG agency.
> As this becomes shifted to ICANN, this protection will no
> longer exist. I
> spoke to Phil Sbarbaro last Friday and he indicated that NSI
> is actually
> considering dropping ALL filtering, in DNS registration
> systems, due to this
> reasoning. The point is that filtering is not defensible, in
> the US, by a
> non-government agency.
> WRT US Statute protection for marks, it is a congressional
> directive applied
> exclusively to DOC/PTO and has no jurisdiction beyond that.
> Were someone, in
> Mexico, to operate a Smokey Bear web-site, under MX, the USG could do
> nothing about it.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > Sent: Friday, November 26, 1999 1:47 PM
> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-b] US Statutorily Protected Marks
> > At 14:41 25.11.99 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > >Several participants have asked me about the list of
> > statutorily protected
> > >marks under US Federal Law. The following is a "partial"
> > list obtained from
> > >the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure - Section 1900.
> > >http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmep/1900.htm
> > Thank you - this makes the point that US statutorily
> > protected marks do not
> > necessarily meet the Paris/TRIPS criteria for "famous marks" more
> > eloquently than any logical argument!
> > "Smokey Bear" indeed!
> > Harald A
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no