To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Hungary, Hungarian Patent Office"
Subject: RFC-3
Date: June 13, 2001
HUNGARIAN PATENT OFFICE
VICE-PRESIDENT
Budapest, June 13, 2001
500-TDN-18
Mr. Francis Gurry
Assistant Director General
Legal Counsel
WIPO
34, chemin des Colombettes
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Dear Mr. Gurry,
Please find enclosed the comments of the Hungarian Patent Office on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO2-RFC-3).
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Mihály Ficsor
Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
-Comments-
Chapter 2: International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances (INNs)
The INNs shall be protected against registrations as domain names. Protection could be granted through the prohibition of the registration of a domain name which is identical to an INN. The exclusion of such names may be based on the Cumulative list of recommended INNs published by WHO. The fact that the list of INNs already exists list shall facilitate the implementation of the exclusion procedure. It is recommended that national domain administrators make this list available to registrants.
It is not recommended that the protection of INNs should apply to misleadingly similar names or to other languages than those in which the Cumulative list is published. Such a broad prohibition would be a too strict and probably unnecessary solution. Furthermore, it seems difficult to implement it in practice.
It is recommended that the protection of INN's in the domain name space should apply to all past and future domain name registrations but the solution adopted shall not prejudice to any right acquired previously in good faith or should include a transitional period.
The protection of INNs should allow the registration as a domain name of an INN together with the name of a manufacturer of the INN, since this possibility is also permitted in the physical world.
The solution based on the exclusion of INNs is preferable to other policy instruments such ad modification of UDRP or a notice and take-down procedure. One of its main advantages is that it allows to check abusive domain registrations while the UDRP can only be used after the registration of the name.
Chapter 3: Names of international intergovernmental organizations and their protection in the DNS
The protection of the IGOs through the .int top-level domain seems to be insufficient since it does not offer any protection against abusive registrations in the other domains.
Common conditions to all top-level domains -both gTLDs and ccTLDs -should be defined and adopted in order to protect INNs.
Names protected under the Paris Convention should be excluded from domain name registration but it might also be worth considering that the scope of protection also be broadened to those other names and acronyms that are commonly used by the IGOs and well-known to the public.
Chapter 4: Personal names
Against the first alternative proposed by the interim report concerning the protection of personal names it may be argued that the solutions adopted as to other issues will certainly require the modification of the UDRP. Therefore waiting for the settling of the emerging developments is not recommended.
The UDRP proved to be an efficient and successful mechanism against abusive registration of trademarks as domain names, therefore it is possible to suggest that its scope be broadened in order to cover other categories -such as personal names -as well.
It is not recommended to limit the modification of the scope of the UDRP to the new TLD .name, since this solution would not offer any protection against abusive registrations under other domains.
Chapter 5: Geographical indications, indications of source and other geographical terms.
The introduction of an exclusion mechanism is not recommended. The fact that there does not exist a definitive and internationally accepted list of geographical and other indications makes it very difficult in practice to offer an adequate protection to these indications.
It would be preferable to extend the scope of the UDRP to geographical indications, indications of source and other geographical terms.
As far as the question of standing is concerned, taking into account that the UDRP implies a privately-administered procedure, the second alternative proposed in the report, according to which only the Government of the country of origin would have standing is not recommended. The application of private international law described in the third alternative seems to be a more equitable solution compared to the first solution proposed.
Chapter 6: Trade names
Having regard to the difference between the various national approaches in this field, modification of the UDRP is not recommended at this stage. Solutions should be sought at national level.
However, if any decision concerning the revision of the UDRP is adopted, it should cover all existing open and new gTLDs and national domain administrators should also adopt it in order to obtain a larger uniformity regarding this issue.
Chapter 7: The role of technical measures
The Whois system will be an adequate way of protection against abusive domain name registrations when it is made sure that all details contained in the databases are accurate and reliable. Interconnection between the various databases is also recommended. At the moment these conditions are not fulfilled.
In cases where one name may have several lawful owners adoption of solutions such as
gateways and similar mechanisms is recommended, especially as far as homonymous geographical indications or trade names are concerned. However, these mechanisms only function in case of registrations made in good faith but does not offer adequate protection against abusive or bad faith registrations.