To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Korean Intellectual Property Office"
Subject: RFC-3
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:34:33 +0200
Name: Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO)
Organization: Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO)
Comments of the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
The Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO) would like to provide the following comments regarding the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process While we basically agree with the principles of the recommendations in the report, we would like to make a few comments as follows;
- Paragraph 52 of RFC-3
As for the method of protection of INNs within the DNS, we believe that the registration exclusion mechanism would be more desirable than application of the UDRP.
With respect to the scope of protection of INNs, we consider it desirable that it should be limited to the prohibition of the registration of a domain name which is exactly identical to the INN, while the domain name consists of INN and any other words are allowed to be registered as a domain name. - Paragraph 124 of RFC-3
Given the fact that the protection of acronyms of IGOs is in the physical world being implemented under the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement, the exclusion mechanism also should be applied to the domain names identical to the acronym of IGOs (ex. WIPO, WHO etc) by listing the names in advance.
However, where the name is considered to be confusingly similar to an IGO's name or is comprised of an acronym of IGOs and any other word, the exclusion mechanism should not be applied to the case but additional administrative dispute resolution procedures should be established as mentioned in this report. - Paragraph 185, 186 of RFC-3
KIPO would like to support that the protection of personal names within the DNS would be implemented through the modification of UDRP.
In modifying UDRP, we believe that personal names which are sought to be protected in the DNS should be the well-known or famous name in the relevant public, considering the aspects of trademark rights and personality rights at the same time
Therefore, we would like to propose the following draft as an alternative to item(i) of paragraph 185.
"(i) The personal name must be shown to be sufficiently well-known in the eyes of the relevant public, such that it clearly identifies the complaint in question."