About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

browse comments: WIPO RFC-1

WIPO RFC-1
lanahanla@earthlink.net
Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:10:18 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: vegar.johnsrud@patentstyret.no: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: Ray King: "Back to the issues..."


From: lanahanla@earthlink.net
Subject: WIPO RFC-1

LANAHAN & REILLEY LLP

MEMORANDUM

TO: WIPO

FROM: Robert C. O'Brien
Paul R. Keating

DATE: 14 August 1998

RE: WIPO RFC 1
___________________________________________________________________

We have reviewed RFC 1 and have the following comments regarding the scope
of the terms of reference.

First, under the heading "Dispute Resolution", the Panel of Experts might
consider whether a legal ombudsman's office should be created within WIPO
or the new Internet Organization. Among the purposes of the office would
be to provide interested parties with information regarding the domain =
name
dispute resolution process, assistance with the on-line procedures and,
possibly, provide referrals to counsel in their jurisdiction who could
assist them with domain name dispute issues. Such an office would be
especially useful to smaller trademark holders and domain name registrants,=

who do not have ready access to legal counsel with intellectual property
expertise.

Second, also under the heading "Dispute Resolution", the Panel of Experts
might consider whether WIPO or the new Internet Organization should create
an on-line database containing court decisions regarding Internet domain
name and trademark disputes. A substantial body of law in this area has
been created worldwide by U.S., U.K. and German courts among other
jurisdictions. Often it is difficult for trademark holders and counsel to
obtain decisions and opinions from foreign jurisdictions in a timely
manner, if at all. It would be useful to participates in the RFC process
to have access to such decisions as they debate various proposals for a =
new
international Internet governance regime. Furthermore, once the dispute
resolution process is implemented, an up-to-date international database
would be a valuable resource for the arbitrators and mediators as well as
counsel for the parties in an ADR proceeding.

Robert C. O'Brien
Lanahan & Reilley LLP
One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(1 213) 236 9600 (Tel)
(1 213) 236 9603 (Fax)
robrien@lanahan.com
lanahanla@earthlink.net

Paul R. Keating
Lanahan & Reilley LLP
500 Sansome Street, Suite 301
San Francisco, CA 94111
(1 415) 421 1100 (Tel)
(1 415) 421 1103 (Fax)
prkeating@lanahan.com

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site

Next message: vegar.johnsrud@patentstyret.no: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: Ray King: "Back to the issues..."