Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "368556909",
    "label": "[05/12/2000 - 05/15/2000]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/368556909"
}

{
    "id": "368556909",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/368556909",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[05/12/2000 - 05/15/2000]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/368556909",
    "collections": [
        "Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)",
        "Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the White House Office (WHO) Bucket"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/26444785/Batch0008/26444785-20060197F-Seg2-063-005-2024-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/26444785/Batch0008/26444785-20060197F-Seg2-063-005-2024-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/26444785/Batch0008/26444785-20060197F-Seg2-063-005-2024-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 120,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/368556909",
    "naId": 368556909,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "26444785-20060197F-Seg2-063-005-2024",
        "[To Cutler]"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 21,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/26444785/Batch0008/26444785-20060197F-Seg2-063-005-2024-021.jpg",
    "mediaId": "4cbb22c4ec4019e2",
    "ocrText": "Oversight hearing testimony of Faith Roessel\nattorneys from the Office of the Solicitor to develop an effective procedure for identifying,\ninvestigating, and ultimately constructing case referrals for alleged violations of the Act.\nOn an interagency level, the Department of the Interior is working with other agencies to create an\ninteragency working group to help foster joint efforts to enforce the Act. The IACB and Office of the\nSolicitor have met with the Department of Justice's Office of Tribal Justice, Environment and Natural\nResources Division, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and Consumer Litigation Section of the\nCivil Division to begin developing a memorandum of understanding on enforcement issues.\nAdditionally, Secretary Babbitt is adding the enforcement issue to the agenda of the White House\nDomestic Policy Working Group on American Indians and Alaska Natives. Through these and\nrelated efforts, the IACB is working towards a more coordinated enforcement policy.\nTrademark Regulations\nThe IACB's major focus is enforcement of the Act. The IACB views the development of a trademark\nregistration program for Indian arts and crafts as an important element of our enforcement efforts. As\nthe Committee knows, under the Organic Act the IACB was authorized to create government\ntrademarks of genuineness and quality for Indian arts and crafts products and to register these\ngovernment-owned trademarks in the USPTO. This did not, however, permit the IACB to go to the\nUSPTO and register trademarks owned by individual Indians and Indian tribes.\nCongress amended the Act in 1990 partly to rectify this problem. The IACB issued final regulations\nin 1996 covering all aspects of the Act, with the exception of its trademark provisions. These were\nleft to a later date, when the IACB would have the resources needed to start a trademark program.\nThe new attorney, assisted by an attorney on a ninety-day detail from the USPTO, began drafting the\ntrademark regulations soon after arriving at the IACB. They soon concluded that two problems posed\nby the language of the Act would have to be addressed before the regulations could be completed.\nThe first problem we came across in drafting the trademark regulations concerns the scope of the\nIACB's trademark responsibilities towards Indian arts and crafts organizations. Under the 1990\namendments to the Act, the IACB is given several separate and distinct trademark functions. It is\nauthorized to create trademarks of genuineness and quality for the IACB and for individual Indians,\nIndian tribes and Indian arts and crafts organizations. But this is all that it is authorized to do for\nIndian arts and crafts organizations, for they are not mentioned again in the trademark provisions of\nthe Act. The later sections of the Act, which specify which entities may have their trademark\nregistered by the IACB, leave out any mention of Indian arts and crafts organizations. The practical\neffect of this will be to deny Indian art cooperatives and enterprises -- be they the Navajo Arts and\nCrafts Enterprise, Hopi Arts and Crafts-Silvercraft Cooperative Guild, Zuni Cultural Arts Council, or\nany other deserving organization of Indian artists and craftspeople -- nearly all of the trademark\nbenefits contemplated by the Act. Given that the stated purpose of the Act was to expand the IACB's\ntrademark powers rather than to contract them, we want to make absolutely certain that the trademark\nregulations fairly and correctly serve Indian arts and crafts organizations.\nThe second issue concerns an apparent conflict between the Act's trademark registration\nrequirements, and the trademark ownership requirements of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C.\nAutomated Records Management System\n5\nHex-Dump Conversion"
}