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


[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

[process2-comments] RFC-1


To: process.mail@wipo.int
Subject: [process2-comments] RFC-1
From: tdennum@caci.com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:13:54 +0200


 Name: Tony Dennum Organization: CACI Position: Vice President This comment is in reference to your decision on how to decide on domain name issues. Trademark words I can understand. But personal names??? What, so I can go in and trademark my name now? Since when did you take on the functions of the doing trademarks? If the word is trademarked, who are you to decide that it will be trademarked as a domain name? You guys really look stupid taking away domain names from valid customers and giving the name to the highest bidder (it's so obvious... and if it's not your intention, you need to work on your PR). I mean really... since when was a person's name "intellectual property". In regards to geographical location disputes, the domains already have this built in don't they? Use a country code for the domain suffix. I've also seen RFCs that actually had names designated for states in the US. Play it smart and just keep it the good old "First come, First serve" method. If a name is trademarked, then I can understand you ruling for the plaintiff. Otherwise, I wonder (and I'm sure others do as well) what the REAL motivating factor is behind some of these stupid decision that you keep making.