RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement

[mheltzer <mheltzer@inta.org>]

I agree with Marilyn that we should be using the WIPO Standing Committee's
work.  However, I believe we should use as the criteria for determining
whether a particular mark is famous in terms of its use on the Internet.  We
should not, however, attempt to necessarily * define * what is a famous
mark.  

Mike Heltzer

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:26 AM
To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; Hartman, Steve; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement


Can we agree to work on a definition, using WIPO's Standing Committee's work
and perhaps other well accepted legal texts?  Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@alvestrand.no]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 5:29 PM
To: Hartman, Steve; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-b] Points of agreement


At 10:07 15.12.99 -0500, Hartman, Steve wrote:
>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.

If you say "can be formulated", I think we're still in agreement (I *so* 
much want to have agreement on something....) because my statement was

 > - Famous marks are not defined to the point where one can make a list of
 > them.

We can disagree on whether it's possible to make a reasonable list based on 
reasonable criteria in the future without disagreeing about whether they 
exist now or not.

I know, I'm clutching at straws.....

                         Harald


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no