[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Marc Schneiders Organization: Venster It is quite clear to me that further extension of "protected names" can only occur after a thorough revision of the UDRP as to how it is functioning. There is every reason not to extent the INcertitudo juris which it is creating to other classes of names in addition to trademarks, which it covers now. Please, do not remove this comment as being inappropriate and not pertinent to the present stage of commenting. It is very much to the point, if only because WIPO is already applying the protection under discussion, as the case over barcelona.com clearly shows. So one might ask, whether discussing it, is useful at all. Further: in the UDRP a complainant has to proove that he is the owner of a TM. How can anyone proove he is the owner of a geographical name? And what is the product assocated with that name? There may be several. Think about the French regions that produce wine. Many of those will also have other products. Is a city council the owner of the name of the city? And what if the city is in a country where there is no free speech? May inhabitants from that city (or those who fled from there to the USA e.g.) not use the name of the city to protest against oppresion? Think Tibet. And what about places sharing their name with other places? There are more Barcelona's than we know... As to personal names, there are even more problems. Fame is not universal. Someone who is famous in Brazil may be unknown in the USA or the Netherlands and vice versa. So, why should a person who is called John Johnson loose his name to a John Johnson famous in a different part of the world? And what exactly is fame? Which percentage of the population should know the person to give him the status of famous? And the population of which countries? Given that these, and obviously countless other problems are making the concepts introduced in this proposal very uncertain, it seems that the outcome of any arbitration will even give rise to more protest than is already voiced against the UDRP with its present more limited scope of "protected" names. So, I must return to my initial statement: There should not (and really cannot, if WIPO is just a little bit interested in certitudo juris) be any extension to "protected" names before the revision, which I trust will be thorough and fair (including the introduction of a simple form of appeal to a three person panel under the UDRP itself), is concluded. It is simply in nobody's interest to create more uncertainty and litigation. Or is it?