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-3

WIPO RFC-3
darnell@radioblack.com
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:06:57 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Benjamin Weste Pearre: "Internet domain names: where should the power lie?"
Previous message: jametrel@enoreo.on.ca: "WIPO RFC-3"


From: darnell@radioblack.com
Subject: WIPO RFC-3

I am a small business owner. This proposal would allow a larger
company to either make a product or claim something they market
is similar to the name of one of my web sites. Just be cause they
are larger (have more money to fight in court), they could then take my domain name that I may have had
before that company (or the company's product) even existed.

This is anti-competitive in nature and caters to big business. If
a company is not smart enough to claim a unique domain name, smaller
businesses should not suffer.

If you wish to stop the resale of domain names not being used by a
company, than a company desiring a domain name should only get it when
that domain name IS NOT BEING USED BY THE CURRENT OWNER. If a domain
is being used for any purpose by its current owner, no one (company
or otherwise) should have the right to STEAL something that was already
purchased. If so, there should be compensation given to the current
domain owner, because their business is being infringed upon by the
larger corporation. This proposal does not view companies equally under
the law. I'm not trying to justify when a domain is purchased but
not used, for the purpose of reselling it. I'm talking about a domain
that is purchased and really being used for any reason at all.

Not to mention domains used for personal use. An individual should have
the right to own a domain for personal use and not have it STOLEN
by a corporation. Even if a corporation can STEAL the domain name, compensation should be given.

No company with the same name as a town or city has the right
to build anywhere int that city without paying for the land FIRST!!! And if the land is already being used, a corporation can not just TAKE
the land in court from the current owner. The corporation must first buy the land from the current owner. Land in cyberspace (domain names)
should be no different with respect to domains already in use.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site

Next message: Benjamin Weste Pearre: "Internet domain names: where should the power lie?"
Previous message: jametrel@enoreo.on.ca: "WIPO RFC-3"