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

[process2-comments] RFC-1

To: process.mail@wipo.int
Subject: [process2-comments] RFC-1
From: gilroy@mindspring.com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:51:03 +0200
 Name: Bernard HP Gilroy Organization: Pan Stellar Combine I feel that the proposed loosening of names is a bad move and is not justified by the current Internet environment. Although I support eviction of "cybersquatters" who attempt to monopolize and sell lucrative domain names, I also recognize a class of people who have the misfortune to have names similar to those possessed by large companies. The choices of such people should not be restricted merely because a corporation has decided to enter the array. Restriction of domain names -- or worse, actual forced transfer of domain names -- strikes me as silly as requiring all people named "McDonald" to change their names. Unless a domain holder is (a) attempting to extort money for a change or (b) setting up a site that directly competes with or impedes a trademarked entity, I believe the decision should be for whomever registered the name first. Additionally, I think it is extreme to allow seizure of a domain name on the basis of "tradenames". Tradenames, unlike trademarks, are broad, unregistered, unregulated, and open to extreme litigation. Allowing an entity to seize a domain name -- even outside its trademarked realm of applicability -- strikes me as nothing less than a brazen sacrifice of any individual rights on the altar of extreme and unhealthy commercialism.