At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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
It may be the point of the WIPO agreement. The point of this thread is
finding a compromise, not creating law.
>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.
Yes they are beyond current law. They are supra-legal. Since we are NOT a
governing body, nor are we a legislature, what business do we have writing
law? There is also the question of this practice being US-legal, as it
requires assignation of basic rights, but this is getting beyond my
knowledge domain. When one starts behaving in a supra-legal manner, one
risks violating the 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?
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
