This is an interesting node.|
"Congressman Darrell Issa, (R) California's 49th District, has
released the draft intellectual property chapter of the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP) on KeepTheWebOPEN.com, while calling on
US Trade Representative Ron Kirk to publicly release the latest
text U.S. negotiators are seeking to include in the agreement. TPP
is being negotiated by the United States, Australia, Brunei,
Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, but
because the Obama Administration has kept citizens,
many-stakeholders and Congress in the dark, little is known about
the intellectual property (IP) rights chapter of TPP beyond rumors
and this February 2011 U.S. draft proposal."
In perusing the text of the draft accord, I came across the
following text (skip to the bottom for the juicy bits):
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CHAPTER
DRAFT – FEBRUARY 10, 2011 - Derived
CHAPTER [ ]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
. . .
ARTICLE 2: TRADEMARKS, INCLUDING GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
1. No Party may require, as a condition of registration, that a
sign be visually perceptible,
nor may a Party deny registration of a trademark solely on the
grounds that the sign of which it is
composed is a sound or a scent."
A "scent". Does that mean what I think it means?
Is that working appropriately correct?
What is the basis for the identification of a scent?
Should there be a universal scent repository, ontology schema or
SCENT_UI so that everyone knows to which scent a statement refers?
Concord, MA (not far from Walden Pond)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)