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 RFC-3 from AIM

Comments on RFC-3 from AIM
Philip Sheppard (philip.sheppard@aim.be)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:24:11 +0100

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: SWEDISH PATENT AND REGISTRATION OFFICE: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Justus Pendleton: "RFC3"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BE5F38.2E3B5440
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

AIM - the European Brands Association response to WIPO RFC-3 Domain name =
report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------------------------------------------------
=20
As stated at the Brussels hearing AIM welcomes the current version of =
the report and believes that it contains intelligent analysis and =
practical solutions. We would like to offer comment on the specific =
paragraphs where either AIM differs from the recommendation or where =
more comment has been requested.
=20
51. Information supplied. We see little merit in the idea that a domain =
name holder may remain anonymous so long as they nominate an agent. This =
will only lead to agencies specifically created to serve bad faith =
domain name holders.
=20
55. Disclosure of contact details. We see no reason to limit disclosure =
to cases of an alleged infringement.
=20
89. Access to a database of contact details of domain name holders. AIM =
supports Alternative 2 first option combined with notification of the =
interrogator's details to the domain name holder. This is both =
transparent and automated.=20
=20
92. Validation. A system of validation that is practical is likely to be =
easy to circumvent if a bad faith party wants to do so. It is best =
therefore not to have such a requirement.
=20
119. Country of jurisdiction. Limiting jurisdiction to the country of =
domicile of the domain name holder or the country of location of the =
registration authority will encourage IPR law cherry picking by bad =
faith parties. Bad faith companies will register in the country known to =
have the weakest IPR law. Jurisdiction options should be the widest =
possible.
=20
189. A centralised appeal procedure is probably going too far. National =
courts will fulfil this function.
=20
194. Payment of fees. The recommendation that the complainant pays up =
front and costs then may be awarded against the other party, seems to be =
drifting too far from the concept that the loser pays.
=20
245. Abusive registration of a domain name (conflicting with a =
well-known mark) should certainty be grounds for cancellation or =
transfer.=20
=20
284. New top level domain names.
There must be no new top level domain names without the adoption of a =
dispute resolution procedure (and the other elements of the WIPO =
recommendations).
=20
Any new top level domain structure must have differentiation within a =
directory structure. So NOT .com and .firm but .books and .airlines.=20
The concept of differentiation should be no different for non-commercial =
domains. For example: a .personal for individual home pages, a .groups =
for clubs and societies that are distinct from the NGOs under .org. =20
Differentiation brings clarity for the consumer and the citizen.
=20

Philip Sheppard
AIM - European Brands Association
Brussels=20
Telephone +322 736 0305

------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BE5F38.2E3B5440
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


AIM - the European Brands = Association response=20 to WIPO RFC-3 Domain name report
----------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------------
 
As stated at the Brussels hearing AIM welcomes the = current=20 version of the report and believes that it contains intelligent analysis = and=20 practical solutions. We would like to offer = comment on the=20 specific paragraphs where either AIM differs from the recommendation or = where=20 more comment has been requested.
 
51. Information supplied. We see = little merit in=20 the idea that a domain name holder may remain anonymous so long as they = nominate=20 an agent. This will only lead to agencies specifically created to serve = bad=20 faith domain name holders.
 
55. Disclosure of contact details. We see no reason = to limit=20 disclosure to cases of an alleged infringement.
 
89. Access to a database of contact details of = domain name=20 holders. AIM supports Alternative 2 first option combined with = notification of=20 the interrogator's details to the domain name holder. This is both = transparent=20 and automated.
 
92. Validation. A system of validation that is = practical is=20 likely to be easy to circumvent if a bad faith party wants to do so. It = is best=20 therefore not to have such a requirement.
 
119. Country of jurisdiction. Limiting jurisdiction = to the=20 country of domicile of the domain name holder or the country of location = of the=20 registration authority will encourage IPR law cherry picking by bad = faith=20 parties. Bad faith companies will register in the country known to have = the=20 weakest IPR law. Jurisdiction options should be the widest=20 possible.
 
189. A centralised appeal procedure is probably = going too far.=20 National courts will fulfil this function.
 
194. Payment of fees. The recommendation that the = complainant=20 pays up front and costs then may be awarded against the other party, = seems to be=20 drifting too far from the concept that the loser pays.
 
245. Abusive registration of a = domain name=20 (conflicting with a well-known mark) should certainty be grounds for=20 cancellation or transfer.
 
284. New top level domain names.
There must be no new top level domain names without = the=20 adoption of a dispute resolution procedure (and the other elements of = the WIPO=20 recommendations).
 
Any new top level domain structure must have = differentiation=20 within a directory structure. So NOT .com and .firm but .books and = .airlines.=20
The concept of differentiation should be no = different for=20 non-commercial domains. For example: a .personal for individual home = pages, a=20 .groups for clubs and societies that are distinct from the NGOs under=20 .org. 
Differentiation brings clarity for = the consumer=20 and the citizen.
 
 
Philip Sheppard
AIM - European = Brands=20 Association
Brussels
Telephone +322 736=20 0305
------=_NextPart_000_00CD_01BE5F38.2E3B5440--
Next message: SWEDISH PATENT AND REGISTRATION OFFICE: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Justus Pendleton: "RFC3"
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/