[log in to unmask]" type="cite">I echo Evan’s sentiments. I have been on the enforcement end of this issue and it is a public threat with regard to fraud -- especially in times of natural disaster. Consumers are bilked out of millions of dollars from very clever squatters. Denying some extra measures of protection do not necessarily help civil society when the opportunities for fraud grow exponentially. I think that having a reasoned, balanced approach makes sense. Separating IOC from RC also makes sense because they are administered differently and there is a different level of public interest involved. While NCSG may disagree with the current proposals for protection of IGO’s and NGO’s, I think that there is room for meaningful compromise that achieves the balance between consumer protection and concerns about overreaching on intellectual property rights and inhibiting free speech.
I think that it is worthwhile to note that trademark rights evolved from concepts related to consumer protection. I will be the first to admit that brand owners frequently lose sight of that very important fact and that there is IP overreach. However, if we go back to the root of the issue and acknowledge that trademark rights were implemented to protect consumers from fraud and confusion then we are serving the public interest. I believe that finding the right balance of consumer protection and free speech is a core value of what are trying to achieve on behalf of civil society and the name space.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
1703 North Beauregard StreetAlexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · [log in to unmask]
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852