>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:41:44 -0500 (EST)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Kevin J.
Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From rspab.com!CONNOLLK Thu Feb 11 08:41:43 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from firewall.rspab.com(NY1.rspab.com[208.240.223.26]) (3888
bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:41:43 -0500 (EST)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from gw1.rspab.com (unverified) by firewall.rspab.com
> (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with SMTP id
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:46:08 -0500
>Received: from RS5DOM-Message_Server by gw1.rspab.com
> with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:40:40 -0500
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5
>Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:40:04 -0500
>From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Trademarks vs DNS -Reply
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Roeland M.J. Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/11/99 03:30am wrote:
>
>{snip}
>{At 01:28 PM 2/10/99 -0800, Kent Crispin responded to Mikki Barry}:
>
>>>> >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.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.=20
>
>>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.
>
>Let's take a step back. Keep in mind that WIPO is addressing procedures =
>only, not the substantive rules of Intellectual Property Law.
>
>Keep in mind, too, that there's a world of difference between mandatory =
>mediation (good idea :-) and mandatory arbitration (not a good idea :-)
>
>Mediation is essentially guided negotiations. If either side doesn't like =
>the result, then there is no resolution. Arbitration is a substitute for =
>going to court. I don't wish to have to defend cybersharque.com in an =
>online environment or to be required to hop a plane to Geneva to do so.
>
>The beauty of mediation as ADR is that rational thinking works. It saves =
>time and money and aggravation. Arbitration, on the other hand, is =
>scarcely less expensive than going to court.
>
>Kevin J. Connolly
>The foregoing statements are solely the author's opinions.
>**********************************************************************
>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>**********************************************************************
>
--
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's all just marketing" +1 (613) 473-1719
Maitland House, Bannockburn, Ontario, CANADA, K0K 1Y0
