browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
dparisi@garden.net
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:54:41 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Richard Sexton: "Comments on WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: MARKENVERBAND: "WIPO RFC-3"

My name is Dan Parisi and I run the whitehouse.com website and I have commented in both public and by email to ICANN. I do not understand why you want to give "rights in gross" to trademark holders. In the real world there are different godds and sevices using the same trademark. In the example of "whitehouse" or "sun" there are dozens of tradmarks for the mark and several parties who all have rights to the name. From what I understand any big company or organization can come in and challenge even common words such as above even though there in no infringement. It seems that the party who is being challenged can lose in this arbitration board which you are setting up but will have the right to keep the name only if they suceed in a court challenge. This is completely in contrast to the system in the United States where you are "innocent until proven guilty" by a court of law. Your system provides that you are "guilty until proven innocent" by a court once you lose in this arbitration board. The Fortune 500 a
nd multinationals who want this system have more than enough money to take people to court so this nonsense that it is more cost effective is ridiculous. Famous marks are already protected under U.S. law provided they are unique. Big Business just wants the "rights in gross" protection in common words which is presently not available to them under U.S. law.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site