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-3

To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Government of Canada"
Subject:
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SUBMISSION FOR THE SECOND WIPO INTERNET DOMAIN NAME PROCESS
Date: July 5, 2001

 

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SUBMISSION FOR THE SECOND WIPO INTERNET DOMAIN NAME PROCESS

Canada would like to thank the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for its thorough research in preparing the comprehensive Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (‘Second Process’) and is pleased to make a submission in response to the request for comments.

The issues raised in the Second Process are complex. Canada believes in the importance of an efficient and inexpensive system for granting domain names that facilitates both growth of the Internet and broader participation. Similarly, Canada supports policies which serve to reduce and resolve conflicts between domain name and other right holders in an expeditious and affordable manner. Canada favours a consensus-based approach in moving forward on these issues because of their newness and dynamism, and the difficulty in determining the consequences of expanding the scope of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), independent of principles embodied in national laws, and international treaties and agreements.

The further evolution of the domain name system (DNS) and demand for new domain names will likely compound the tension between the use of identifiers in the virtual world, and those same identifiers in the physical world. As a general principle, Canada believes that framework rules ought to be the same for both the physical and virtual worlds.

The current practice of allowing the registration of International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances (INNs) as domain names may suggest a proprietary right in INNs on-line, to which holders would not be entitled in the off-line environment. As such, some form of protection within the DNS for INNs may therefore be appropriate.

Issues related to geographical indications are significant and far from settled. The vigorous debates that have taken place within the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) and in other fora such as TRIPS Council clearly demonstrate the ongoing difficulties in international harmonization. As a result, it is premature to move forward in developing new legal principles for geographical indications in relation to domain names in isolation of such ongoing work. Canada supports the recommendation not to introduce an exclusion mechanism for geographical indications, but does not support the recommendation that the scope of the UDRP be broadened to cover abusive registrations of these terms. We believe that this issue is worthy of further consideration in a timely manner in the context of ongoing WIPO work.

The issues pertaining to geographical names, which are currently not subject to protection under intellectual property laws, give rise to a number of questions. There is no international consensus on the answers. The registration of the names of the world’s indigenous peoples as domain names also merits further study as part of WIPO’s ongoing work in the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore.

Should WIPO make recommendations with respect to the DNS for identifiers not governed by existing international agreements, it should also advise how those recommendations could be implemented without creating new legal rights or obligations.

Canada appreciates the significant advances WIPO has made in gaining a better understanding of such complex issues. We look forward to receiving WIPO’s Report on the Second Process and to working together with the international community in promoting improved use of the Internet.

Thank you.