On Wed, Feb 10, 1999 at 03:09:57PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> Kent Crispin said:
>
> >Your point is completely irrelevant. *ALL* of the discussions have
> >been concerning what can be done in the context of existing trademark
> >law. The WIPO procedures etc are *ALL* things that can be done in
> >the context of existing law.
>
> Please re-read the WIPO draft, Kent. It contemplates MANY things that are
> far beyond current existing law.
Please re-read what I wrote. Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates"
things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is
whether the draft specifies things that can't be implemented because
they would *contradict* current law. For example, contractually
mandated ADRs are completely consistent with current law, but they
are also beyond the current law.
But it's certainly possible I may have missed something -- perhaps
you could list the things WIPO advocates that would break current TM
law?
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
