browse comments: WIPO RFC-2

WIPO RFC-2
JIPA (process@wipo2.wipo.int)
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:52:26 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: ABPI: "WIPO RFC-2"
Previous message: IMPI: "WIPO RFC-2"

Attachment: http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process1/rfc/dns_attachments/rfc2/attach913009946.doc

File notes: Posted on behalf of the submitter

To: The International Bureau of WIPO
From: Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA)

November 6, 1998

Comments on WIPO RFC-2

In response to "Request for Comments on Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO RFC-2)", we, Trademark Committee of Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA), report our comments as follows:

The outline of RFC-2 goes along the lines of our comments on RFC-1, and we basically support it.

Our comments on Dispute Prevention are as follows:

(1) A definite period of time should be provided for objection, prior to registration of a domain name, allowing an examination as necessary. We think that such a period should be acceptable, and also necessary for harmonization with existing trademark rights etc.

(2) The domain name database should include the name of applicant, his/her nationality, his/her address, and the goods and services he/she mainly deals with. Additionally, the domain name the registration of which was refused by the new organization should appear in the database.

(3) We hope that this measure will be extended to ccTLD, and an integrated policy for dispute resolution will be provided.

Our comments on Dispute Resolution are as follows: Please refer to our recommendation for the flow chart of dispute resolution, as attached.

(1) The dispute resolution by the new organization should be restricted to possession of a domain name.

(2) A conflict relating to possession of a domain name can also occur between bona fide parties, not only cases involving cyberpiracy. Such a conflict between bona fide parties should be addressed by the new organization.

(3) As a domain name dispute cannot be resolved according to the existing systems, a unique criterion should be established and applied for such a dispute resolution.

(4) The same criteria for gTLD should be applied to ccTLD. We hope that the new organization will also resolve inter-ccTLD disputes.

Our comments on Protection of Famous and Well-Known Marks are as follows:

(1) Because the protection of famous and well-known marks is a matter of existing rights within the framework of existing society, criteria for famous and well-known trademarks and the policy on protection of these in the context of the Trade Mark Laws should be respected. The results of studies of famous and well-known trademarks in the TRIPS agreement and the SCT of WIPO will be of help.

(2) For famous and well-known marks, the database should include the mark, the ownership, the period for determination to be famous and well-known, and so on.

(3) Such protection should also be applied to ccTLD.

We expect that further investigation would be made by the WIPO taking JIPA's comments in consideration.

Japan Intellectual Property Association
Trademark Committee
Chairman
Tetsuro Iizuka

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site