Re: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Specifically, how does this discussion of noncommercial usage affect
exclusion?  The non-commercial use of an AUFM (such as xerox.firm) as a
domain name carries a heavy presumption of being unlawful (unless you
wanted to create a noncommercial gTLD such as
xerox.[obviousindicatorofnoncommercialuse].




At 01:44 PM 12/2/99 EST, you wrote:
>Hmm, I think you are missing my point as well, Mike?
>I am trying to say that the statutes that protect Smokey Bear and Olympics 
>are NOT the statutes we should be using as a basis for the protection of 
>famous marks.  These statutes are not trademark law -- the involvement the 
>registration of certain ** noncommercial ** words for public policy
reasons.  
>These public policy reasons are distinct and different (and provide a 
>protection far broader) than trademark protection -- for basic or famous 
>marks. 
>
>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.  
> 
>Many of the noncommercial organizations with "famous marks" have trademarks 
>-- and it is the trademark arena we have been delegated.
>
>kathy kleiman 
>
>> However, I believe you missed the point I was trying to raise. In your
>>  original e-mail you stated:
>>  
>>  [KK:] I am surprised to find this Working Group moving forward with 
>researching
>>  protection for NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS such as Federal Parks and 
>Veteran
>>  Associations, etc.
>>  
>>  The intention of my original reply is that all famous marks, whether owned
>>  by a for-profit or non-profit organization are entitled to protection
under
>>  our Working Group mandate. As I have been reminded, non-profit, does not
>>  mean for free. I would argue that a great number of non-profit 
>organizations
>>  rely heavily upon the value of the their trademark in sponsorship and fund
>>  raising activities. I believe it could be argued that these organizations
>>  should be entitled to greater protection because they do not have the deep
>>  pockets to fund expensive litigation. Every dollar that a non-profit
spends
>>  in legal fees is one less dollar that is available to the non-profit's
>>  cause.
>>  
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @