WIPO RFC-1
LGrif71872@aol.com
Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:37:19 -0400
Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Clive Boustred: "Comment from Strategize.com RE WIPO Internet Domain Name Process"
Previous message: Kathrynkl@aol.com: "WIPO RFC-1"
From: LGrif71872@aol.com
Subject: WIPO RFC-1
Dear Sir/Madam:
I repectfully request that the Panel of Experts consider the following comments relating to the draft terms of reference set forth in WIPO RFC-1:
DISPUTE PREVENTION
1. The possibility of the relevant Registry being responsible for accepting service of process (and forwarding the process) in cases of intellectual property disputes.
2. The desirability of requiring use of a domain name (beyond merely having one or more active name servers; e.g., requiring that an actual web site be up and running within a certain time period) in order to mitigate cybersquatting or warehousing of names, and as a means to free-up unused domain names.
3. The Draft Terms of Reference appear to address only generic Top Level Domain Names which will be administered by the New Corporation. (The Statement of Policy concerning the "Management of Internet Names and Addresses" advises that national governments will continue to have authority over their own country-code Top Level Domains ("ccTLDs").) However, many infringement issues occur with respect to ccTLDs. Therefore, the Panel of Experts might consider the relationship of the New Corporation (and the WIPO recommendations and dispute resolution process) to the ccTLDs, and whether there is value in permitting the national governments to opt into, or in attempting to recruit the adherence of the national governments to (1) governence by the New Corporation, or (2) governence by rules and structures uniform to those governing the New Corporation.
4. Desirability of recommending that the registration of certain names, not falling within the traditional concept of "famous marks", be reserved for use by the appropriate organisations, such as NATO, RED CROSS, UNITED NATIONS, WIPO, etc.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
5. The desirability of defining what constitutes "cyberpiracy", and the scope of applicability of the dispute resolution approach. I do not know what "cyberpiracy" means. The Statement of Policy concerning the "Management of Intenet Names and Addresses" distinguishes between "cyberpiracy" and "conflicts between trademark holders with legitimate competing rights". However, a trademark holder may not have a legitimate right to a trademark, in the case where the registration and/or use of the trademark was obtained or undertaken in bad faith. In such a case, would the illegitimate trademark holder be considered a "cyberpirate"? This distinction does not seem useful, since such a determination could only be made after a dispute was resolved. I note the issue may already be addressed by items (c), (h) and (i).
-- Posted automatically from Process Web site
Next message: Clive Boustred: "Comment from Strategize.com RE WIPO Internet Domain Name Process"
Previous message: Kathrynkl@aol.com: "WIPO RFC-1"