[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words
At 13:44 02.12.99 -0500, KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
>If this group goes too broad, we will lose our mandate, our support and our
>intent. The cybersquatting/UDRP looked at protection for trademarks
>(commercial marks);' the WIPO report looked at protection for famous marks
>(as commercial marks). If we want any type of mandate in what we are doing,
>this group must stay within the scope of previous work and deal with
>commercial protection of famous marks.
I don't think anyone has advocated moving in the direction of making this
group work with noncommercial marks. We're merely (I think) exchanging
information about categories that may abut or overlap with the "famous
So far, getting the rough consensus that "statutorily protected marks in
the US only intersect the space of famous marks by accident, if at all" is
a reasonable thing to spend a few messages on.
BTW, I think the mandate of the group is defined in terms of famous marks
as defined by the Paris convention and TRIPS treaty; the only mark I have
heard mentioned on the list that has successfully been defended in the US
based on these treaties is "Cognac", which is not a trademark.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway