[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal
At 12:56 14-04-2000 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>I believe that the continued efforts of the IPC and the Registrars, along
>with valuable input from other constituencies and individuals, represent a
>significant step forward in the consensus process. Due to the late breaking
>nature of these events, I will disclose in my report that the latest IPC
>proposal was not able to have adequate discussion on the list.
Frankly, I think this proposal is beneath the dignity of WG-B.
How could a single trademark issued a year ago satisfy the concept of
protecting consumers from confusion about the origin of goods/services?
They have totally gutted the intent. And to drive one more nail in the
coffin, asking for 20 additional ostensibly related modifications of the
name. There's an old saying about what happens to hogs.
I would limit the number of similar applications to 5 -- certainly a total
upper limit of 10, subject to the criteria set forth below.
The most significant concern I have heard about having WIPO prepare a list
of globally famous trademarks if that it could based upon subjective
criteria. Amounts amount of funds expended on advertising was suggested as
one rather lose, un-auditable criterion I heard. I propose that WIPO
employ a quantifiable, objective set of criteria along the following lines:
I offer a counter proposal on which considerable effort has been expended
in the past. The very first iteration of the WIPO proposal which I saw in
perhaps Feb or Mar of 1997 had an objective, quantifiable set of criteria
-- the number of issued patents worldwide.
I therefore propose the following objective criteria for a globally famous
1. A minimum of X issued trademarks worldwide. To be considered in these
calculations, these marks would need to be at least one year old on 1
2. Those trademarks to include at least Y each registered marks in 3 of the
5 ICANN regions.
3. Those regional trademarks being issued in at least Z countries in the
regions claimed in item 2, above.
I suggest that X>49, perhaps X>74
I suggest that Y>10
I suggest that Z>5
(It should be noted that there are about 50 countries in the AP
region. Five is a very small number. Perhaps three would be adequate for
North America, but all the other territories have large numbers of member
I think these numbers are relatively small to be considered a globally
Let's send back this IPC proposal marked "DOA".
"A hog seldom dies a natural death."
Ulric B. Bray
(Anyone for bacon?)