To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: " Japan, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)"
Subject: RFC3
Date: July 5, 2001
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, TRADE AND INDUSTRY
JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
1-3-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
100-8901 Japan
Tel: +81 3 3501 3752
Fax: +81-3-3501-6046
July 5, 2001-07-05
Mr. Francis Gurry
Assistant Director General
Legal Counsel
World Intellectual Property Organisation
34, chemin de Colombettes 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
Dear Mr. Gurry,
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is pleased to submit our comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (see attachment). Please accept our apologies for their tardiness.
If you require an electronic version of the comments, please let me know by e-mail to kamegaya-akihisa@meti.go.jp
Thank you in advance or your cooperation.
Yours sincerely,
Akihisa Kamegaya
Deputy Director, Intellectual Property Policy Office
Ministry of Economiy, Trade and Industry
Governments of Japan
COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM REPORT OF
THE SECOND WIPO INTERNET DOMAIN NAME PROCESS
FROM THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, TRADE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN
I. GENERAL REMARKS
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) applauds WIPOs continuing efforts to tackle the worldwide problem of cybersquatting and its attempts to propose solutions to conflicts between non-trademark identifiers and domain names.
In the present comments we will focus specifically on intellectual property-related aspects of the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.
II. DETAILS
1. International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances (INNs)
The METI agrees with the RFC3 conclusion that INNs should be protected against cybersquatting.
As INNs should be open to anyone to use them and INNs list is established and regularly updated by the WHO, it would be appropriate that INNs be protected not through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) but by a prior exclusion or blocking mechanism by registration authorities.
Furthermore, our positions on several specific issues raised in the interim report are as follows:
(1) It would be sufficient at present that coverage of a prior exclusion or blocking mechanism be tentatively limited to the registration of domain names identical to INNs, as further study as to the coverage would be needed taking into account the current status of actual use of INNs in the real world;
(2) The issue of domain names similar to INNs is not urgent;
(3) It is not at present necessary to decide in which languages INNs should be protected. While the WHO has only authorized INNs in five languages, considering the increasing use of various languages in domain names and the actual status of INN use in countries which use languages other than those five, it is not currently necessary to limit protection to the five languages. (With respect to ccTLDs, one option could be a prior exclusion or blocking mechanism for the five languages, and expansion to other languages at the discretion of the registration authorities);
(4) In determining whether to apply the newly introduced roles to currently-registered domain names as well, it is necessary to consider the current status of use in the real world; and
(5) INNs should be protected in the case of all open gTLDs and ccTLDs as well.
2. Names of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)
Considering the fact that the protection of IGO names vis-à-vis registered trademarks is achieved through prior exclusion, prior exclusion or blocking by registration authorities is a rational method for protection of IGO names against domain names.
As to abbreviations of IGO names, uniform application of prior exclusion seems to be inappropriate. One option of protecting abbreviations would be through the UDRP, i.e. to protect them only against registration of domain names in bad faith.
When protecting IGO names by a prior exclusion or blocking mechanism:
(1) such mechanism should not cover domain names that are not identical but confusingly similar to IGO names nor are identical or confusingly similar to IGO abbreviations;
(2) such mechanism should apply to all gTLDs; and
(3) the scope of prior exclusion or blocking should be limited to the names of IGOs notified and protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Furthermore, when names of IGOs are protected against gTLDs. , equivalent protection should be secured in respect of ccTLDs as well.
3. Geographic Indications and Indications of Source
As we do not recognize urgent need to adopt new measures to protect geographical indications and indications of source, we think that further research should be pursued on the actual situation in respect of domain names and those indications before introducing any new measures.
4. Trade Names
While trade names sometimes have the same function for indicating source as trademarks, a WIPO survey revealed that there is no international consensus on the level of protection of trade names. Consequently, in deciding whether to protect trade names which are not registered as trademarks through the UDRP, we should consider the possibility of relief by the current UDRP and whether there is actual necessity to expand the measures to cover such trade names. At present, we do not see any substantial need to expand the scope of the UDRP to such trade names.