browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
Korean Industrial Property Office (icds@chollian.net)
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:08:58 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: brunner@maine.rr.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: scot@autonomous.org: "WIPO RFC-3"

Comments of the Korean Industrial Property Office on the Interim Report on WIPO Internet Domain Name Process

The Korean Industrial Property Office (KIPO) would like to provide the following comments regarding the Interim Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process

While we basically agree with the spirits of the recommendations in the report, we want to make a few comments as follows;

o Paragraph 51 of RFC-3

In light of the privacy considerations, we suggest that a domain name holder remain anonymous on condition that it supply the contact details of his/her designated agent.

o Paragraph 89 of RFC-3

We think there should be a balance between privacy considerations and the full access to the contact details of all domain name holders for the protection of IPR. So we are in favour of Alternative 2(Filtered Access to the Database mentioned in Paragraph 87).

o Paragraph 158, 159 of RFC-3

We agree that the decision-maker in the administrative procedure should have the power to order other measures concerning the status of the domain name registration that might remove the grounds of the dispute, such as the modification of the domain name registration, re-assignment of the domain name to a different TLD, or the maintenance of a gateway page or indexing mechanism.

o Paragraph 189 of RFC-3

We are in favor of the incorporation of a centralized appeal process whereby consistent decisions can be secured. But the decision of the appeal process must be made in a relatively short time.

o Paragraph 223 of RFC-3

As we are interested in the protection of the well-known marks and famous marks on an international scale. We propose that some trademark experts of the KIPO should be appointed as a member of the panel of experts who will decide on the request of the exclusion filed by well-known or famous trademark owner.

o Paragraph 245 of RFC-3

We are in favor of the recommendation that the abusive registration of a domain name, such as "cybersquatting", or "warehousing of domain name" can be grounds for the cancellation or transfer of a registration in the administrative dispute-resolution procedure to the extent that the remedies won't be a barrier to the autonomy or efficiency of the management of the internet system.

The proposed constituent elements of the abusive registration set out in the report[Paragraph 244] should be more clearly defined in order to determine whether the registration of a domain name falls under the heading of abusive registration and to protect the registrant in good faith.

Thank you.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site