Re: [Bimi] Today's BoF

[Wei Chuang <[e-mail]>]

*From: *John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
*Date: *Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:26 AM
*To: *Wei Chuang
*Cc: * <[e-mail]>

Wei,
>
> Two observations on separate notes...
>
>
(Regarding the first, I didn't want to repeat what John L. had already said)


>   The other is the second basic problem.
>

> With the possible exception of a relatively small number of
> internationally well-known / famous names and marks, registered
> trademarks are tied to both geography and field of application.
> If BigCo.co.uk sells widgets and BigCo.us makes blankets for
> wizzles, there is most likely no trademark violation and both
> companies may be completely legitimate (unlike the example
> above), have the marks appropriately registered, and are able to
> obtain even the highest assurance certificates possible
> --different jurisdictions and business locations and different
> fields of application.   Even if both selected logos that were
> very similar, trademarks wouldn't help much.
>

Agreed that the VMC proposal which maps onto the existing trademark
framework including its warts.  So yes agreed that this system will allow
for similar marks owned by different companies in different jurisdictions,
or across different lines of business.  Presumably its one that users live
with and presumably navigate in a reasonable fashion.  Consequently there's
a set of recommendations in the VMC security perspective draft section 2.5
and 2.7 particularly about the display and non-display of logos:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chuang-ietf-bimi-security-perspectives-00#section-2.5

As Dave said, people have been working on these issues for well
> over a century with very little discernable progress.    I can't
> recommend holding your breathe about the latter problem


+1

-Wei


> and,
> even if it were solved, that would still leave the nature of the
> domain name market.


> best,
>    john
>
>
>
>
>