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: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
dancohen@clearthink.com
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:29:01 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: E2@dg15.cec.be: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: egerck@mcg.org.br: "WIPO RFC-3"


From: dancohen@clearthink.com
Subject: WIPO RFC-3

I will try to be brief.

After reading the RFCs, documents on international IP law, messages from ICANN, the GLTD-MoU and other background documents, I propose the following solution to the PCT problems caused by the Internet domain system.

Patent, copyright and trademark issues are well handled within national boundaries. Each member state has laws and controls in place so that mark holders are protected and compensated. If a mark holder wishes to sell a physical product in another nation, he must reister the mark in that nation to protect himself. In the case of domain names, the complexity arises out of the fact that the top-level domains are "no place", and the propagation of PCTs within those names causes disputes over fair use.

PCT arbitration over mark usage in country-code TLDs should occur within the nation managing the TLD. If all domains were country specific, it would move the issue where it belongs; into the country of origin.

I propose a three-phase solution; each member state is given the authority and responsibility of PCT law for its own TLD (already the case). All domains registered in GTLDs have 365 days to move their domain into their national TLD. New registrations in TLDs will be halted. The ability to create new generic domain structures can also be given to the member state.

The TLDs will be moved to WIPO servers that have one task; to redirect the request of the client browser. When a browser requests a page from www.mcdonalds.com, the WIPO server will respond with a generic page suggesting the portal site of McDonalds or the nearest nation to the browser, and suggest that all documents and bookmarks get updated. After three years of this service, the WIPO servers shut down.

Global business clients must then return to registering their marks on each country where they do business; both in the patent and trademark offices, and with the PTT or other authority for domains. Upon reflection, this is the way most global business is conducted for other matters.

For additional information please contact Dan Cohen at dancohen@clearthink.com. Thank you.

Dan Cohen
Clear Thinking Technology
+1 (514) 734 0034
dancohen@clearthink.com

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site

Next message: E2@dg15.cec.be: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: egerck@mcg.org.br: "WIPO RFC-3"