browse comments: WIPO RFC-1

WIPO RFC-1
kami@jipa.or.jp
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:27:36 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: sarah.b.deutsch@bell-atl.com: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: illiniky@mx2.nisiq.net: "WIPO RFC-1"

Attachment: http://wipo2.wipo.int/dns_attachments/attach903994056.doc

This is response from Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA)to
WIPO's Request for Comments on Terms of Reference, Procedures and
Timetable for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO FRC-1).
Please find as attachment JIPA's Trademark Commitee in Word 5 version
and in Text.
--------------------------------------------------------
To the International Bureau of WIPO

Aug.17, 1998
Comments on WIPO RFC-1

In response to "Request for Comments on Terms of Reference, Procedures and
Timetable for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO RFC-1)", Trademark
Committee of Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA) reports our comments on
it, as follows.

It is certain that domain name disputes are closely related to trademarks and unfair
competition. It is also certain that the handling of famous/well-known trademarks
under the Trademarks Act or the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act and the theory
of dilution would be helpful for resolution of such disputes. However, domain name
disputes are very different from traditional trademark infringements or unfair
competitions, in that domain names are registered and used independently of the
national boundaries, goods/services, industrial classification and so on. Therefore, we
should explore unique means to resolve domain name disputes, which are not to be
resolved by directly applying the Trademarks Act or the Prevention of Unfair
Competition Act. We basically support the approaches for dispute resolutions
suggested in "Draft Terms of Reference" in RFC-1.

We think that domain name dispute resolutions should be approached based on the
following five principles.

(1) A unique criterion should be established for domain name dispute resolutions,
apart from the Trademarks Act or the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act. However,
to establish this criterion, the handling of famous/well-known trademarks in the
Trademarks Act or the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act and the theory of dilution
should be respected.
(2) New Organization for dispute resolution should encompass cc domain registries in
each country. We expect that New Organization would additionally resolve disputes
between gTLD and cc domain or between different cc domains.
(3) The disputes are not necessarily to be resolved by a decision in a particular court.
Besides, the dispute resolutions should focus on the possession of domain name, but
should not cover damages.
(4) As much important as dispute resolution is dispute prevention(e.g. through
directory service). In particular, the use of directory service seem to be effective for
dispute prevention. The directory service should include at least name, nationality,
address, and main goods/services of a registrant.
(5) Famous marks should be given special protection.

We hope that our comments will form the basis for the formulation of WIPO's
recommendations regarding intellectual property issues associated with Internet
domain names..

Japan Intellectual Property Association
Trademark Committee
Chairman
Tetsuro Iizuka

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site