How does it work in civil-law countries? (Was something else)

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 09:34 AM 01/14/97 +0100, Paul Svensson wrote:

>Could anyone on the IAHC care to comment on what their plans are to promote
>this intent in countries that do not base their legal system on case law?

Could any critic of the IAHC proposal who has offered a concrete
alternative (understanding that such critics are in fact quite rare)
explain how *their* alternative is supposed to work in such countries?

I assume you are talking about civil-law countries, countries that don't
base their legal system on case law to the extent that other countries do.

The answer is simple.  The plans are to publicize the 60-day period to the
Internet community and to the trademark community.  The International
Trademark Association (note the word "international" in the name) has
credibility worldwide.  Courts of all the countries of the world have heard
of INTA and they know that INTA speaks for trademark owners in all of those
countries.  The INTA Internet Subcommittee has published its
recommendations which also call for a waiting period, although it isn't 60
days but some other period.  (I trust all those who are jumping in on this
waiting period debate have carefully read the INTA proposal, which is at
<http://plaza.interport.net/inta/intaprop.htm>.)  When a court in a
country, any country, gets a trademark case in some new area of law, the
court will in fact consider, among other things, what INTA has said about
that new area of law.  

In this case the court would also look to the IAHC commentary as to *why*
the waiting period was put into place, and will consider that as well.