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: frupp@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:41:08 +0200


 Name: Forrester Rupp The simplest solution to the ongoing and growing problem of Trade Name disputes is to allow TM Holders a TLD of their own, and a single .Com to ensure that those unaware of their TLD don't go to a confusingly similar site. The Big TM Holder Companies will not be able to function on a single .com due to their size and the numbers of pages a single .com supports (with ease of use for those trying to navigate a site with 50,000 pages) The allowing of a TLD to these Companies allows them, the sphere of influence they desire and allows for -- recognition of their dominance in that market without any possibility of confusion by an educated Internet user. This solution also removes the majority of the cybersquatting problems due to the lack of TLDs. The effectiveness (of speculation in Domain Names) to gain from the possible sale to a TM Holder becomes ineffective and a waste of money for the cybersquatter. It also puts the responsibility and control of the TLD in the hands of the Company most suited to the expansion of that portion of the Internet and moves the responsibility (of deciding who is best suited to run the TLD) to WIPO. Eventually we will have an Internet with hundreds of thousands of TLDs but that is only a reflection of the need for TLDs to represent the hundreds of thousands type businesses, that will eventually do business on the Internet. The use of the TLDs by Societies various Market Sectors, acting in their own Spheres of Influence is not, to be viewed as a problem of excessive TLDs...the use by those, with an ability and desire to work in that market sector, is what is most important. Irrespective of the publics lack of use....it is those businesses, that participate in the TLDs use, that will determine the success of the TLD along with the TLDs Holders' main purpose being to promote the successful use in that market. The one thing WIPO must ensure is that: the TLD Holder allow for Competition of services in their TLD to prevent monopolization of the Market by the TLD.