Re: consensus and the 60-day issue

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Robert,

  I agree with you.  It seems that a few on this list seem to think
that the perposal is favored by most of the people whom have posted
and are therefore in agreement with the 60 day waitng period as well.

  I don't happen to agree with them, but they acn have their delusions
if they choose.  

  *others*  Update your tallys! :)

Regards,


Robert Frank wrote:
> 
> 1.  I beg to differ with some of the postings regarding consensus.  Having
> worked on issues of domain name space allocation as it applies to
> trademark rights for the last couple of years I have thoughts on practically
> every aspect of the IAHC draft.  But just because I have thoughts or
> opinions does not compel me to post and re-post my thoughts and
> opinions.  First, in some aspects I am not technically competent.
> Second, in some aspects others have so thoroughly discussed the
> issue that I could not see any way that whatever I contributed would
> have any impact whatsoever.  Third, I write on those topics that I
> am pretty sure I know what I am talking about.  Just because people are silent on a topic
> does not mean that they are not interested.  If they were not interested
> in what was being discussed, they would not subscribe to a list that
> has over 100 postings per day and we would be seeing alot more
> "unsubscribe" or "remove" messages.
> 
> 2.      There have been comments that the 60-day issue is a caving in
> to a trademark association's needs. (I assume the association in
> reference is the International Trademark Association, INTA.)  My
> company has been a member of INTA for many years and I have
> served as chair or co-chair of committees and sub-committees although I am
> not a lawyer.  I *** AM NOT *** speaking as a representative
> of INTA in this posting; INTA has a rep on the IAHC who extremely
> competent and knowledgeable in this matter and has
> authority to speak on INTA's behalf.  INTA has several
> thousand members from all over the world.  Practically every
> major corporation is a member of INTA.  The 60-
> day issue was not, in my opinion, a cave in to INTA but was
> an acknowledgment of the rights and requests of trademark owners on a
> global scale.  That includes the companies that run the
> backbone, supply the phone lines, develop the software,
> prepare the accounting packages, etc. that we all use
> on a daily basis.  Those who are small business entrepreneurs
> today might one day be the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates of
> tomorrow and when someone then takes your company's
> name you will be yelling to INTA and the House Judiciary
> Committee and the courts that you need protection.
> 
> Further, there has been alot of discussion based upon the
> fact that only a few hundred law suits have been filed over
> domain name disputes and, therefore, there should be no
> waiting period because we are dealing with a small minority
> of the total registrations.  Regretfully, you are missing all
> of the out-of-court settlements that occur.  My company
> had an out-of-court settlement over a year ago.  Almost daily I help
> companies plan out-of-court approaches to dealing with
> infringers.  Open your eyes folks to the real world.  The attorneys
> are really trying to avoid litigation and a waiting period is, IMHO,
> essential to achieve this end.  If a 60 day wait is tried and it seems
> to work, then CORE can at a later day reduce it down to 45 days
> or 30 days and see what happens.  But if you start it at 30 days
> and it is not sufficient, it is much harder, in my opinion, to stretch
> it to a longer period.
> 
> Finally, I, Carl Oppedahl and others have tried for two years to
> get an understanding of TM principles across to readers of
> newdom and now iahc-discuss.  Regretfully, TM law is not
> clear cut or simple.  What works for Kodak or Exxon might not work
> for Online Imaging or CORSEARCH.  There are principles such as
> "likelihood of confusion" or secondary meaning or dilution
> which all have to be considered when discussing TM law
> and policies that affect trademark rights. Since there has not
> been an agreed upon position by the subscribers of this
> list as to what to do about the waiting period, and since I am
> quite sure that IAHC is aware of all the various points presented, and
> since I am quite convinced that no further discussion of this
> issue is going to convince anyone to change their position, can
> we just drop this topic and go on to something more substantive?
> 
> Robert Frank, President
> CORSEARCH, Inc.
> 
> (Speaking for myself as an interested party.)

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com