[process2-comments] Comments on WIPO RFC-1

 Name: Jacqueline Lipton Organization: Law School, University of Nottingham Position: Senior Lecturer in Law Comments on WIPO RFC-1 by Jacqueline Lipton (24 August 2000) The following comments relate to item B(ii) in the List of Issues set out in RFC-1. This item might be expanded to incorporate the following issues: 1. How to define a 'personal name'; for example, would pseudonyms or 'stage names' be included particularly in the case of famous persons such as 'Madonna' or 'Ziggy Stardust'? 2. As a corollary, should 'collective' names, such as the names of pop groups (eg ABBA, Spice Girls), be included in the concept of a 'personal name' or 'famous name'? 3. As a further corollary, should there be an upper limit on the number of names / pseudonyms a person can protect? 4. Should specific consideration be given to the obvious multitude of possible domain names that might be associated with a personal name; for example, if my name is John Thomas Smith, the number of possible equivalent domain names might include johnsmith.com, jsmith.com, jtsmith.com, johntsmith.com. johnthomassmith.com etc. Similar issues come up with registration of hotmail addresses where a number of people have similar names but need different usernames for hotmail accounts. Some guidance might be found here from looking at how such email systems deal with these issues. (This issue can obviously also be a problem with tradenames etc, but the scope of the issue could be broader with personal names given that there are often many more variations possible on a personal name than on a tradename.) 5. If the event that it is thought desirable to limit protection to 'famous names' as is one of the suggestions in item B(ii), consideration might also be given as to how to define a 'famous name'. In fact, perhaps B(ii) could be re-worded to clarify what is meant by a 'famous person' and a 'government official or other person in the public eye' and to clarify the difference between the two categories if ultimately there is a significant difference for discussion purposes. In addition to the above, and a more general query: Should something be included in the terms of reference about whether or not (or the extent to which) domain names should be regarded in domestic and international law as legal 'property'? There has been some debate in the legal literature about whether such names amount to a new form of intellectual property or are merely contractual licences granted by registering authorities such as Network Solutions. The classification of domain names as property or otherwise may have some significance not only in the resolution of disputes, but also in resolving issues arising in areas like the transfer of domain names from one business to another. There may be tax / duty implications on such conveyances in certain legal systems if the names are 'property'. There may well be other legal issues hinging on whether or not such names are property at law depending on the jurisdiction. Is this an issue on which it would be useful for the WIPO process to make some comment or should it best be left to the development of the law in individual states? I hope the above is of some assistance in the next iteration of the Terms of Reference. Sincerely Jacqueline Lipton Senior Lecturer School of Law University of Nottingham University Park NOTTINGHAM NG7 2RD UK Fax: +44 115 951 5696 Tel: +44 115 846 6307 email: jacqui.lipton@nottingham.ac.uk