On 26/4/17 6:50 pm, icannlists wrote:
Thanks Rebecca. I'm not characterizing you as anti-trademark; just your arguments and positions to date on this list. We would very much welcome anything favorable to trademarks that you wish to add to the discourse.
It may be worth noting that if we go by the public remarks of the International Trademark Association, they too don't seem to believe that the lowest common denominator standards of a single country should have extra-territorial application throughout the world, as occurs in the case of the TMCH (this comes from their application to be joined to the Equustek case, a Canadian case which sought to apply its law extra-territorially). INTA has an over-arching interest in having the territoriality of trademark law recognized in court decisions around the world. This appeal is squarely within INTA's interests as it raises the issue of the appropriate territorial effect of an injunctive remedy granted in the context of trademark litigation. ... In particular INTA will provide submissions on how the territorial nature of trademark rights relates to the scope of extra-territorial injunctions available to enforce those rights; and the issue of trademark territoriality as it relates to "the core values of any nation" that may be effected by an extra-territorial injunction which prevents, in the worlds of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, "advertising [of] wares that violate ... intellectual property rights." So maybe INTA too is anti-trademark. ;-) -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122