RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement

["Hartman, Steve" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com>]

I regret I cannot agree with the first. Reasonable criteria can be
formulated for defining a famous mark for the limited purpose of an
exclusionary rule. The second is probably right; it would depend in large
part on how many marks are deemed famous. I agree with the third.

Steve Hartman
Nabisco, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 15, 1999 2:22 AM
> To:	wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-b] Points of agreement
> 
> It seems universally agreed that:
> 
> - Famous marks are not defined to the point where one can make a list of
> them.
>    Existence proof: The list doesn't exist.
> 
> - Exclusions have to be applied mechanically, or they would
>    a) increase the cost of registrations by requiring human judgment
>    b) unacceptably increase the liability of registrars/registries
> 
> - Exclusions of all instances of a famous mark as a substring in a domain
>    name will exclude names that a court would not uphold the exclusion of.
>    (existence point: tenNISSANdiego. Example point: i-hate-oreos)
> 
> If these 3 points are agreed, I think we're moving slightly forward.
> 
>                                 Harald A
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no