browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
scot@autonomous.org
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:55:10 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Korean Industrial Property Office: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Brazilian Steering Committee: "WIPO RFC-3"

Re: Chapter 5 s.284. Comments on differentiation in domains.

First I will make some comments and then I will propose some solutions.

1. The problem occurs mostly in the '.com' domain. Although this is mostly spoken of as an "international" domain the reality is it was created as a "US" domain, and the vast bulk of the registrations in this domain are based in the US. These companies frequently have only a local or regional focus in the US itself, i.e they are barely national, let alone international.

2. The whole reform process has to be addressed as a single wholistic problem, from the intellectual property perspective, from the national/international issue, from freedom of expression points of view, and from the ease-of-use for end-users perspective.

3. Most countries or other legal jurisdictions already have a valid trademark registration process, and also a separate and equally valid company registration process.

4. Further, it should be noted that, in Australia at least, when companies register their name with the appropriate body, they are merely informed that trademark registrations take precedence and that they declare they have such a right to use the company name. Provided they meet such criteria, the name is registered and similar registrations are generally disallowed. Full titles must be usually be used e.g. "Frisky Corporate Services Ltd" would not disallow e.g. "Frisky Floors & Furnishings Pty Ltd".

5. Trademark registrations are usually confined to a category and are not usually "global" in extent (ie Class A). Hence, both companies as above could register "frisky" as a trademark in their respective categories.

The domain process, if TM is to be applied, and keeping in mind the other concerns which are equally if not more valid than just the property rights to the name, should somewhat mirror the above processes.

As part of the "user friendliness" criteria I would regard it as imperitive that the number of TLDs is NOT INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY. Finding a company is already bad enough when you have to search the national domain, the .com, and the .net, with all of the possible spelling variations. This also compounds companies trying to protect their marks from predatory practices. Therefore the problems we have with the EXISTING domains will not be solved with the wholescale creation of NEW domains. We should solve the problem in the domains that exist, rather than creating new problems in new domains.

First, .com registrations. If you take to mean .com == .company, before registration in this TLD occurs, applicants should furnish some proof of existance of a company operating and trading under that name. .com is NOT a space for TRADEMARKS per se. Frequently, Company.Com will operate many different marks co-responding to different "brands" Therefore they should be using brandname.company.com, which they don't have to register once they own company.com or, complete a registration for a trademark registration (see below).

Similarly, .org registration should be accompanied by some proof that the organisation is non-profit or non-commercial in nature. No trademarks would be allowed in this domain generally unless it is operated by an entity which otherwise meets .org criteria.

.net should be reserved for network providers only.

Trademarks should be registered in one of only two new domains to be created, .tm. This would include various sub-domains for product categories, and would be directly administered (ie registrants appointed, rules formulated) by WIPO or other suitable non-national trademark body.

Lastly, there should be a single, "free-for-all" TL Domain created in which there are no criteria for registration, no trademark enforcements, no national jurisdictions, no moral considerations, no required entities of any particular type, etc.

This may seem radical but I believe the solution I have proposed are merely the rigorous application of the ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES behind the creation of the GTLDs in the first place. Only by using a little intellectual fortitude in the application of those principles to the existing name space will the problem be largely solved.

Sure, Vested Interests being what they are, this solution is possibly unlikely, but I sincerely believe that there is a REQUIREMENT to try and fix the problem in accordance with the first principle of the domain creation.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site