Michael and all, Michael M. Krieger wrote: > Arnold Gehring wrote: > > > > One would think 'RFC', in minimum case, considered to be a common law > > mark; in the generous case, a famous mark. I smell infringement, > > confusion, and dilution. However, I don't smell any money in this one. > > > and Jeff Williams responded > > > You indeed may have a good point here, to be sure. However I > > look at WIPO as using the term "RFC" as simply borrowing > > its familiarity in the internet industry as well as with the DOC > > for purposes to add some value to "RFC-3" that may or may not > > be present, depending on whom you might ask. > > To the extent that the history/usage of 'RFC' support it being a trade- > mark, Arnold is quite right. > > And if Jeff's premise is right, his implied conclusion that "it's ok" > is quite wrong. "Simply borrowing it's familiarity" is exactly the kind > of thing that's actionable (under lots of closely allied legal names and > theories - palming off, trademark infringement, etc.) namely, trading on > a the goodwill of a mark created by another source. I am not implying that it is OK at all. In fact quite the contrary. My comment was intended to be sarcasm, not an exoneration of any sort to what WIPO is attempting to do with using the term of "RFC" in its context with respect to the use of "RFC" by the IETF. Im my own opinion it is completely WRONG for WIPO to do so in any context. However I would point out that I doubt that WIPO is using the term "RFC" as a slimy attempt to steal some sense of creditability that may or may not be associated with that term, (RFC). > > > Here WIPO does indeed seem to be riding on the authority, goodwill and > trust that have traditionally marked the RFC's since Steve Crocker launched > #1 -- doing it in order to, as Jeff suggests, "add some value." That money > is not changing hands over this (e.g., selling copies of the RFC) won't > in itself exonerate what's otherwise wrong. As I indicated above, I agree completely. > > > And, assuming 'RFC' is a protectable mark, using 'RFC-3' won't whitewash > the deed anymore than my act of selling a new laundry detergent in an orange > box would be cleaned up by calling it "Tidal." LOL! How true. > > > I have to refrain from commenting on the status of 'RFC' at this > moment, but whatever way the dust settles, WIPO seems to have exercised > bad taste -- albeit marketing smarts -- using the noble acronym. Whether > it's bad legal judgment will depend, inter alia, on whether there have been > significant other uses by 3rd parties. > > In the latter case, I'd welcome hearing about examples. Meanwhile, we > can contemplate the concept of WIPO committing an IP faux pas. > > Michael > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
