On 03/02/2012, at 2:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> FWIW, there is now a discussion going on in At-Large on the issue, started when I forwarded Konstantinos' original mail.
> 
> There are a few sentiments being expressed there that might find common ground here:
> 

	Glad to hear it. 

> 1) Many respondents believe that there is no cause for *any* exception, that the existing defined objection processes should be sufficient for any application harming the public interest to be stopped.

	Yes, The IFRC and IOC do not simply need to demonstrate that they are entitled to special rights over the words requested (which i don't believe the IOC have done), but they should also demonstrate why existing objection processes are not sufficient to protect those rights. Quite possibly being able to use those protection measures via direct appeal to treaty/legislation rather than via trademark law may be sufficient to provide the protection they are entitled to. 
	
> 
> 2) If there is a realization that some exception process *must* happen to appease the GAC, there is significantly more sympathy for the IFRC to get an exception (because of the potential of squatters to go after Red Cross charitable donations) than for the IOC which has (to some), along with its national affiliates, been excessively aggressive in attacking the many non-conflicting overlaps of the string "olympic" (family restaurants, Greek airlines, etc). In fact, I have yet to hear from anyone in the At-Large discussion who supports any blanket exception for the IOC.
	
	Good to hear it. The two cases must be considered separately, and on individual merits, IMO. And I think the IOC argument as put forward so far is not strong, both in regards to the extent to which it appears to overstep the mark in ignoring existing trademarks, and to the extent it relies on a misleading and irrelevant mention of the Treaty of Nairobi (which protects the 5 rings symbol, not the word olympic). 
	Regards

		David