At 09:40 AM 12/27/97 -0500, Kevin Connolly wrote:
>Dear Bob:
>
>First things first:
>
>Merry Christmas!
>
>As always, please feel free to re-post or forward this note, or refrain
>from doing so :-)
<snip>
>Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>>
>> In this posting, I want to set forth our (PSI-Japan's) strong
>> objections to the WIPO ACP delays and the transfer of Albert Tramposch
>> from his assignment to the ACP project.
>
>One way to get WIPO moving is to propose that the system be amended . .
>. too replace WIPO with someone/something else. This is a matter that
>could be pre-digested on the PAB list for a few weeks prior to the
>January POC/CORE meeting.
27 December 1997, 07:40 PST from California
Dear Kevin:
Before posting my note, in those early morning hours with my head on the
pillow, I thought of throwing the specter of another vehicle for arbitration
into the note. *That* certainly *should* bring WIPO to their senses. However,
the thought faded from my mind on the light of day. That was an unfortunate
omission. :-{
I think we really should do so in light of the irresponsible act WIPO has taken
at this crucial time.
Regards, BobC
>> I first read the proposal for the dispute mediation/arbitration of
>> tradename conflicts last March. I have been aware for many years of
>> the problem of trademark pirating in Japan. Like the Internet, the
>> Japan Trademark application process is based upon the first to file.
>> There is no requirement for any proof of use or statement of intent to
>> use the make which is the subject of the application.
>>
>> I had been concerned with the tradename crashes (collisions) on the
Internet.
>>I found them similar to the Wild West law of the
>> jungle which prevailed in Japan when I first arrived 26.5 years ago.
>> I saw great benefits from the concept of the ACP's. I thus elected to
>> go to Geneva to learn more and to sign the gTLD-MoU.
>>
>> One of the aspects which I found particularly laudable was the
>> preemptive *exclusion* of famous trademarks from the "inventory" of
>> names which would be available to CORE. I've been asking, and asking
>> --- and asking again, when will it come to pass.
>
>Bingo. The weirdness is that there is a mixed operational/policy
>dimension here. I believe that there is a sufficienntly operstional
>dimension to permit CORE to adopt and implement a stopgap policy. A
>number of trademark holders I've been in contact with want to know when
>the process will open for pro-active exclusion. All that Emergent needs
>is a list. This is a matter to beat to a pulp at the CORE/iPOC
>meeting. In particular, I believe CORE should consider adopting an
>interim policy. For example (really rough concept) a trademark holder
>can pre-file an declaration of intent to apply for pro-active
>exclusion. Accompanying that declaration with either (a) proof of a
>trademark registration for goods or services which fit within the ambit
>of the TLD and antedate the policy by a long enough time that it does
>not appear to be another form of piracy or (b) declarations from
>appropriate authorities (internationally-known PR companies?) attesting
>to the international fame of the mark. These names would be
>provisionally poisoned pending ACP action.
>
>Is this a good policy? No, it's not intrinsically good. But it is
>better than doing nothing. Waiting for WIPO to do this for CORE is a
>mistake. The international trademark comunity wants to know that we're
>doing something.
>
> Best regards,
>
>Kevin J. Connolly
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert F. & Jane Wms. Connelly
Internet: rconnell@psi-japan.com
California Mailing Address
17300 E. 17th Street
Unit J-222
Tustin, CA 92780-1991
TEL (714)544-6242
FAX (714)730-9434
CellPhone (714)270-3599
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*VJewx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:17 PST