[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Re: [registrars] Next Step
If you can get this to work, my hat will definitely be tipped in your direction. It has only one problem. It is the same problem that plagues every other idea for famous-mark determination. Which court will recognise it? The idea is grand, but will it play in Peoria? The other problem is codifying this. It's right on up there with codifying "honor". It can't be done because it won't scale.
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:17 AM
> Let me expand on what I said before. We've all been looking at that
> illusory *someone* to create a list. Why not "self create* the list?
> Let the IPR community post their own credentials.
> Have someone review their submissions to see if they fit the
> Let's establish the criteria along the lines of my prior proposal.
> The point is to encourage the IP community to submit their own
> credentials. Set up someone to evaluate those objective
> credentials. Based upon the results, self selected trademark
> owners could
> register one domain for each confirmed "famous" trademark
> plus no more then
> five related terms.
> Let each participant submit one of the following (to be determined):
> 1. List of issued trademarks in various territories per
> formula shown below.
> 2. documentary proof of issued trademarks in the Territories
> per formula
> shown below:
> Along with the submission would be a fee -- $1,000 to
> $10,000. These fees
> to pay for the clerical work to verify the submissions.
> Now, which should it be, honor system or proof? Under the
> honor system,
> applicants could lose their domains if they cheated.
> Now to the criteria, my original posting and my present idea:
> Begin quotation from Subject: Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal
> At 12:56 14-04-2000 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 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
> trademark/service mark:
> 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
> January 2000.
> 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
> end quotation:
> Final evaluation:
> I suggest X>74
> I suggest that Y>10
> I suggest that Z>3
> end evaluation:
> This morning/evening some of us agreed to the idea that there
> should be a list.
> Some of us thought WIPO should not create the list.
> Some were afraid that there would be complaints from those
> who did not make
> the cut.
> My proposal leaves it to those who want to be on the list to apply.
> My proposal gives them the means to opt to apply and the
> rules to "join the
> Let's run it up the flagpole and see who is too chicken to
> play the game.