You hadn't made it clear that you were asking ICANN to adopt your own
personal proposal for criteria, rather than follow the world's famous mark
practice.
OK, let's not adopt Mr. Oppedahl's personal criteria of "coined and
unique", as it is a marked departure from the existing case law, and would
not grant protection to JOHNNIE WALKER, CADILLAC, NIKE, MARLBORO, CARTIER,
CHANEL, DISNEY or many other of the world's famous marks.
I am cross-posting this to the WIPO list, as this is a proper discussion
for that list.
At 09:31 AM 5/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>At 09:03 AM 5/7/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>
>>Without commenting on the proposed 'exclusionary" practice itself, I note
>>that Mr. Oppedahl impliedly misstates the standard for being a famous mark.
>> It is not "coined and unique." Non-coined marks which are famous include
>>JOHNNIE WALKER, CADILLAC and NIKE.
>
>>Demonstrably unique (or more to the point, demonstrably famous) is a
>>different concept from "coined and unique" and should not be confused.
>
>No, I have misstated nothing. It seems you are conflating several quite
>distinct questions. One question is:
>
>A. What standard does WIPO propose as the criterion for the honor of being
>added to the exclusion List?
>
>B. What additional requirement does Carl Oppedahl propose limiting
>eligibility for addition to the exclusion List?
>
>C. What are the dictionary meanings of "famous" and "well-known"?
>
>D. What is the definition of "famous" under the US Federal Trademark
>Dilution Act?
>
>Mr. Schwimmer seems to be proposing discussions as to C, or D, or perhaps
>A. I was doing nothing more than expressing my view as to B. They are not
>the same questions at all.
>
>
>
>
