[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [wg-b] Noncommercial protections for words

What about Champagne?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:12 PM
> To: KathrynKL@aol.com; mpalage@infonetworks.com; wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: 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 
> marks" category.
> 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
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no