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

[cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices

  To: cctlds.mail@wipo.int
  Subject: [cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices
  From: Madhurima Panwar Mridul < mpan14@student.monash.edu.au>
  Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:20:41 +0200

 

Name: Madhurima Panwar Mridul
Organisation: Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Position: Student(Master of Laws with a specialisation in Internet and 
Electronic Laws)
The views expressed herebelow are my own.
1) This is with reference to `(a) Local
or foreign trademarks' under Localizing 
the procedure on page 8. While discussing the advantages/disadvantages of 
registering a domain name as a trademark locally, it has been mentioned that 
registering a domain name as a trademrk locally would subject it to attack by 
parties who have no ties whatsoever with the country in question. That may be 
so. But the fact is that a particular domain name is available on the internet 
and can be accessed by anyone anywhere at all times. Because it is being used 
locally does not `localise' it on the net. This process I believe would only 
further the cause of creating some form of uniformity and assuring legitimate 
protection of internationally known names/trademarks, and would not give a 
party undue advantage of use of an established name (maybe) just because it is 
being used locally.
2) Reference to point 4) of comments posted by Henry Olsson of the Ministry of 
Justice, Stockholm.
Sir, wouldn't you say that if the panelist were of the same nationality as that 
of the party it would be compromising the `principle of impartiality'? However 
impartial a panelist may be you will agree with me that it takes superhuman 
effort to overcome our cultural bias.They do work on us on a subconcious level. 
If a mark is well established in a local market a little enquiry would reveal 
that.Besides the decisions are based on all facts and circumstances(page6) and 
not solely on the ability of the parties to produce certain 
documents(e.g.trademark certificates)in support of their position. To maintain 
objectivity and impartiality at all times and to remove even the slightest 
possibility of compromising the two, the panelist should be of a different 
nationality unless offcourse both the parties to the dispute have the same 
nationality,as has been provided for.
Thanks.

Back to Browse Comments for WIPO ccTLD Best Practices