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

[wg-b] Re: [ga] newyorkyankees.com suit

And if Harald's next door neighbor in Norway adopted the mark NEW YORK
YANKEES he would be doing so in bad faith.

>"Unique they may be, but not terribly famous on this side of the pond."
>Here we run into a familiar problem.  The laws of the nations of the world
>define famousness in strictly national terms.  WIPO sought to craft a
>procedure that required a new category of globally famous marks, but for
>what I think are political reasons people sometimes obscure this.  There
>are a lot of people (or people with clients) who hold nationally famous
>marks and think they should have a prior right to their domain
>name even in a trans-national medium.
>There are a lot of problems with this expansive view.  One, of course, it
>that it expands the rights of (national) famous marks well beyond their
>intended scope.  And if even WIPO wouldn't wear it...
>Another problem is that it is quite possible, and far from unheard of, for
>two different firms to have a famous mark that is the same word in
>different nations.
>While I think that Harald's analysis on his web site of the applicability
>of famous marks to the net is about right, my fallback view is that
>whatever is done absolutely must limit its reach to GLOBALLY famous marks
>-- and many, probably most, of the thousands and thousands of NATIONALLY
>famous marks won't qualify.
>All that said, if the defendant in this case is a US person, then it seems
>quite appropriate to use US law.  And the NY Yankees are arguably the most
>(in)famous baseball team in the US.
>Furthermore, if the domain name was registered in the US, the US Congress
>in its wisdom has decided that the issue can be adjudicated in a US court.
>US choice of law principles will then apply, as will US famousness.  [If
>the basis for jurisdiction against a foreigner is in rem, odds are US law
>applies.  If the basis for jurisdiction is minimum contacts, it gets
>complex.  There are no cases that I know of which provide direct guidance
>on what law applies when the defendant in an alleged cybersquatting case
>is foreign and there is minimum contacts jurisdiction.  It would depend on
>the facts.]
>On Wed, 29 Dec 1999, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> At 15:18 29.12.99 -0500, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>> >The registrant may in fact be a Mets fan.
>> >
>> >http://www.nypost.com/business/20655.htm
>> >
>> >NEW YORK YANKEES would be an example of a unique famous mark.
>> Pardon?
>> This side of the pond, I don't even know if they play baseball, oval-ball
>> football or some other game.
>> Unique they may be, but not terribly famous outside the US.
>>                         Harald A
>> --
>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--