browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
john@annapolis.net
Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:09:10 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: egerck@mcg.org.br: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Clark Evans: "Purpose and Public Key Cryptography (Was: Re: Simple Solution)"

Internet Registrars must not become the de facto Internet Name police, judge and jury.

Registrars must allow any and all names to be registered without regard to possible infringement or political correctness.

To have the registrar take on the responsibility of deciding what names areproper would be ridiculous. Why should they become the self appointed
Internet Police? What special wisdom would they posses?

There are already legal mechanisms available to trademark and copyright
holders. There is no need for the registrar to be treated any differently than a newsstand, neither can or should be held responsible for their content, to do so would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

A newsstand is not liable for the fact that a particular magazine, book or newspaper may contain a copyright or trademark infringement and neither should an Internet Name registrar. The Internet Name Registrar is simply a directory listing of names and addresses, much like a classified ad in a newspaper, nothing more.

In the real world if you have a grievance with a violator of your trademark or copyright you must take it up with the actual violator, not the intermediate messengers and directories that lead you to find the possible violator.

Just because an Internet Domain Name is the same as a commercial name does not in itself make for a violation. It is the actual content of a site that determines if a violation is taking place. A trademark has to be specific in its area of coverage, you cannot simply trademark a name and forbid its future use for any purpose whatsoever under the sun.

A registrar must not be asked to prognosticate on how a given name could be used by its owner in the future. Therefore, it shall be up to the trademark holder, through legal due process, to prove in a court of law whether or not the actual existing web site represents a violation of trademark or copyright.

If the court determines that indeed a violation does exist, than the court must issue an order for the current Internet Name holder (not the registrar) to stand down and relinquish use of the Internet Name for the actual purpose in question. Very seldom would a decision be made that the actual name itself must be returned.

Thank you for your consideration, I welcome your comments,

John D. Goodspeed

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site