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: Comments on resolving domain name disputes

Comments on resolving domain name disputes
Erik Nilsson (erik.nilsson@graphicode.com)
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 9:35:32

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: kathrynkl@aolcom: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: TSWINEHART/0002131750@MCIMAIL.COM: "WIPO RFC-1"

To Whom it May Concern:

WIPO has called for a "uniform approach to resolving domain name disputes"
and has asked for comments.

As a long-time user of the Internet and as president of a company with
significant investments in our intellectual property and trademarks produced
in our ten-year history and worldwide business, I feel I am well-informed on
this issue.

I do not think that there should be a "uniform approach to resolving domain
name disputes." I do not see a WIPO-imposed dispute resolution mechanism for
domain names as helpful. I do not think a uniform transnational approach is
possible or desirable.

WIPO seems to believe that the world's trademark disputes should be funneled
through the domain-name assignment machinery. That's unworkable, but even if
it did work, it would be a bad idea. A domain name is only one way to
infringe a mark, and currently the economic importance of infringing a mark
via a domain name is marginal, compared with other infringements. Creating
this role for domain names turns the domain-name dispute mechanism into an
odd kind of world judiciary with no judicial principles other than the
sanctity of intellectual property. That's not a kind of tyranny I want to
live under.

It seems clear from recent developments that WIPO is determined to exceed
the scope of its White Paper tasks, and impose a WIPO dispute resolution
mechanism on the Internet. I find this objectionable.

I urge WIPO to abide by the same rules as the IFWP, namely the White Paper.
I further urge the WIPO to return to its tasks as set out in the White
Paper, and stop wasting time on tasks which are not assigned to it.

Regards,

- Erik Nilsson
President and CEO, GraphiCode (Organizational affiliation provided for
identification purposes.)

Erik Nilsson
GraphiCode, Inc.
6608 216th St. SW
Suite 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Phone: (425) 672-1980
Fax: (425) 672-2705
erik.nilsson@graphicode.com
http://www.graphicode.com

Next message: kathrynkl@aolcom: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: TSWINEHART/0002131750@MCIMAIL.COM: "WIPO RFC-1"
https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/