browse comments: [Fwd: WIPO/RFC3 and RFC 1591 - March 1994 J. Postel]

[Fwd: WIPO/RFC3 and RFC 1591 - March 1994 J. Postel]
Jane & Helmut Hirsch (h-domain@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:47:09 -0800

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: erinsowden@aol.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: gdp@hpalaw.com: "WIPO RFC-3"

--------------18D66BDF3C72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gentlemen,

The attached was unfortunately misdirected to you, WIPO, as wipo.org
instead of wipo.int; we hope that you can and will still include it in
your comments, as it was actually sent before midnight of Friday, March
19, 1999 our local time. It came back via Daemon. If you need and
request evidence, we have the Daemon message and can send it to you;
though this way the attached message is cleaner than reading it through
all the Daemon routing procedure.

This shows in a way how important TLD's are, since from memory I
consider you, WIPO, as an .ORG and not as an .INT.

Sorry, Helmut Hirsch

--------------18D66BDF3C72
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <h-domain@ix.netcom.com>
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4])
by ixmail2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id WAA25265;
for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:45:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
id WAA23228; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:30:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ali-ca51-55.ix.netcom.com(209.110.236.183) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
id rma023199; Fri Mar 19 22:30:08 1999
Message-ID: <36F3253B.681C@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:34:03 -0800
From: Jane & Helmut Hirsch <h-domain@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: h-domain@ix.netcom.com
Organization: Hermes Domain
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; U; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: process@wipo2.wipo.org
Subject: WIPO/RFC3 and RFC 1591 - March 1994 J. Postel
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In RFC 1591 of March 1994 it seems clear to me from the text that as far
as the internet administrator/s are or were concerned their is NO
absolute superiority for Trademarks over Domain Name(s).

RFC 1591 / 2. under Wolrd Wide Generic Domains: under COM -
"This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
concern about the administrative load and system performance
if the current pattern of growth continues. Consideration
is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow
future commercial registration in the subdomains."

Comment: There was already in 1994 concern about the overload of the
system performance. Yet it was never again restricted to allow
registration only to commercial entities. That is probably much too late
to correct now.

Later, under 3. 2) there is a comment about: "Concerns about "rights"
and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be
concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community."
And goes on under 3) "The designated manager must be equitable to all
groups in the domain that request domain names."

Comment: This very clearly signals, that no favoritism is to be given to
any groups of domain name registrants or domain name aspirants.

and lastly, RFC 1591 / 4. "Rights to Names"

1) "Names and Trademarks"

"In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights
to a particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or
responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both
parties.

The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark status.
It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone else's
Trademark."

Comment: Sure, this may not be written in the precise and legislative
language or word formulation of intellectual property or trademark
lawyers, to be totally unumbiguous and usable in all court situations
when someone wants to claim "superior" rights; but it seems to me very
clear from all of the inferences of RFC 1591 and I believe RFC 1480 (?)
and others by Mr. Postel and other equally well versed administrators
for the Internet - that "registration of a domain name does NOT have any
Trademark status" but in the converse the ABSENCE of a Trademark in a
domain name, or the Trademark rights of a Trademark do not automatically
follow and attach to a domain name - even if the domain name is exactly
equal to or closely similar to a Trademark. Requestor of the first
instance - the actual registrant - and the requestor of the second
instance - the claimant have to work it out, as to who has more superior
rights. This takes the sting out of the assertion that anyone - i.e.
domain name holder(s) - who runs afoul of a claimant with alleged
superior Trademark rights has to roll over immediately and hand the
domain name automatically over to any claimant. A very NEUTRAL procedure
is needed to safeguard the rights of all parties, but even more so the
domain name holder, until it is proven with absolute clarity that a
claimant has more rights to the domain name than the holder.

Helmut Hirsch

--------------18D66BDF3C72--