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 - European = Brands=20 Association
Telephone +322 736=20 0305
Next message: SWEDISH PATENT AND REGISTRATION OFFICE: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Justus Pendleton: "RFC3"