[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Second Circuit on First Amendment Analysis of Domain Names
I don't see why ICANN cannot define a "famous mark" for the sole purpose of
an exclusion from the domain space. For example, a famous mark could be
defined for this limited purpose as one that has been registered in at least
50 countries for at least 5 years and has had worldwide sales of at least US
1 billion dollars for each of 5 of the last 10 years. While I don't suggest
that the 5-year/10-year period and US$1 billion are the right numbers, or
that additional or alternative criteria are more appropriate, a domain name
exclusion based on such a definition of a "famous mark" strikes me as
reasonable and workable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 12:21 PM
> To: Hartman, Steve; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: 'Martin B. Schwimmer'
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] Second Circuit on First Amendment Analysis of
> Domain Names
> That pretty much says it. I might add that 1b, not having a clear
> definition, is pretty much a show-stopper, IMHO. Many of the ills
> with the enforcement of marks, famous of otherwise, fall from this lack of
> unifying definition. The world, at large, can not even agree as to what a
> Famous Mark is. This is to the point that I would ALMOST state that there
> no such critter. However, even I know better than that. But, the world's
> legal community doesn't seem to agree and therein lays the problem.
> What is absolutely clear is that only the soverign nations, via
> action, can define this very short list and thus resolve the impass. Were
> they, collectively, to pump out a list of famous, gobally protected marks,
> would back an exclusionary policy, based on such a list, today. Such a
> must be valid in EVERY jurisdiction in which MHSC operates. Any other
> of action opens the registry operator to excessive liabilities and legal
> My point and advisory to the WIPO crowd is that previous efforts have been
> much too broad and general, to the point of impacting free-speech. Get a
> little less greedy (more specific) and you might get something through the
> various policy critters. Also, be a LOT more upfront with what you want to
> accomplish and quit relying on PAC bushwacking tactics.
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Hartman, Steve
> > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:44 AM
> > On the issue of a blanket exclusion of [famous mark].[tld]s, wg-b
> > split along the following lines:
> > 1. Those opposed to such an exclusion believe that it (a) raises an
> > appreciable first amendment problem, and/or (b) is unworkable because
> > concept of "famous mark" is not well-defined.
> > 2. Those in favor of such an exclusion believe that there are no
> > free speech
> > or definitional problems, or at least that such problems are
> > manageable and
> > are far outweighed by the benefits of a famous mark exclusionary rule.
> > Is this a fair summary?