On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 10:56:47AM -0600, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
[...]
> What I am suggesting is that such a plum should be given only to the
> company that can establish that its mark is coined and unique.
I don't think that such a criteria really gets to the heart of the
matter, however: "coined and unique" is a criteria othogonal to
"famous and well-known", and it is "famous and well-known" marks that
demand protection, not "coined and unique" marks. SMUDBLAT would be
coined and unique, for example, but not famous. DISNEY is famous,
but not coined or unique. Realistically and politically speaking,
criteria that eliminate DISNEY are probably not going anywhere.
The original MoU ACP guidelines tried to set objective criteria for
famous marks -- marks that, among other things, were registered in 75
or more countries, as I recall. While no such objective criteria
could be perfect, perhaps, with some thought, they could be
reasonable. "Coined and unique" might be heavy weighting factors in
such criteria, but they are insufficient on their own.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
