About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

browse comments: Interesting suggestions

Interesting suggestions
Oriol S. (g75f3s@email.com)
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 19:04:39 +0100

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: leelam@yahoo.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: jwinn@post.cis.smu.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"


I think the interesting suggestions made by Michael Froomkin (which can be
found at http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf ) must be taken into serious
consideration.

I also would like to state that I think really strong trademarks do deserve
their corresponding domain on the net, but I don't think they deserve just
about any domain that has any resemblance with their marks..

For little known trademarks I don't think they deserve to have any priority
over a domain name owner. Especially taking into consideration that a domain
registration is global while a mark is purely regional. I think the first
come, first serve rule is perfectly right.

I think paying in advance for registering domains would be a great
improvement for everybody and would discourage speculators from taking over
too many domains (making those unavailable to interested parties).

Finally, I would like to state my concern over the possiblity of a (possibly
small) county to issue a false trademark (especially with a false older
effective date) in order to get over attractive domain names... I think the
database controled by Network Solutions is more trustworthy than some
countries registries may be...

I would also suggest the older a domain name registration is, the less
vulnerable it has to be with respect to possible trademark owners disputes.
Domain name owners also are basing their bussiness on that name they are
using and must be protected from interferences... I would even establish
some sort of total prescription timeframe of about 3 or 4 years. With the
current popularity of the net that's time enough for a trademark owner to
_initiate_ a dispute... and this would give greater security to a domain
name owner, a right I think they deserve when it is clear they are not
interfering with any trademark owner.

Oriol S.


Next message: leelam@yahoo.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: jwinn@post.cis.smu.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"