> On Fri, Jan 02, 1998 at 11:49:08AM -0500, Connolly wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues:
> >
> > The United States Patent and Trademark Office has announced the
> > formation of a Public Advisory Committee on trademarks. Trademark
> > policy has an obvious relationship to the Domain Name Wars. I
> commend
> > PAB's attention to
> > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/fr97121844.html
> > for the details.
> >
> > The deadline for us to send a letter to the Dept. of Commerce is
> January
> > 8. We need to
> > identify a PAB member who is qualified to fulfill this role and to
> write
> > the best possible letter on his or her behalf. This opportunity to
> > participate in the shaping of US trademark policy is too good to
> pass
> > up.
> >
> {SNIP}
> I think this is a superb idea, and an outstanding opportunity. The
> notice states:
>
> SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark Office is seeking five members
> for the Public Advisory Committee for Trademark Affairs. Member
> terms would begin on January 1, 1998. A member must be an
> organization that is representative of the intellectual property
> community, e.g., a bar group, a business organization or an
> academic institution. Organizations interested in membership
> should send a letter expressing that interest and containing the
> information set out in the Supplementary information to the Patent
> and Trademark Office.
>
> It would be very good indeed if PAB could be a member. I propose,
> therefore, that we draft a letter quickly. Kevin, do you have time
> to draft one, or should some other "volunteer" be enlisted?
I'm already drafting a basic letter about PAB, gTLD-MoU and the need for
cooperation between PAB and PTO.
>
>
> As I read the notice, the issue of which individual member of PAB
> should be the representative is independent of whether PAB should be a
>
> member, and thus we can proceed on the letter without hearing from
> Marylee (though it would be good to have a volunteer or two in hand
> before we actually send the letter.)
I concur, especially since the PTO's group is supposed to be conversant
with practice before that body.
>
>
> Kevin: am I correct in this assumption, or do we actually have to name
>
> an individual from the start?
It might not be necessary . . . but I think we're more likely top be
considered if we name someone.
>
>
> To all:
>
> If there are any serious objections to PAB leaping at this golden
> opportunity, you must voice them in the next few days. Otherwise, we
> need to proceed.
Very truly yours,
Kevin J. Connolly