browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
brianbo@bocton.com
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:15:48 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tom Orr: "WIPO PROCESS"
Previous message: cparker@century21lv.com: "WIPO RFC-3"

I just got done reading an article on the Interim report. I will read the full report later today. However, I feel I must add this statement for consideration.

It is known that domain names are first come, first served. If a company is slow to register their name it is their problem -- Trademark or not. Even small companies here in Oklahoma City are buying multiple versions of their domain name to protect their name and interests.

As far as cybersquatters are concerened, it should be evident that someone is trading or hoarding names. So, why not cap the resale value of a domain name at say $500. This gives the savvy name collector a few bucks and prevents the seller from paying unbelievable rates. Also, require both parties to submit a bill of sale to the Domain Registration Service (Internic)before a domain is tranferred. Also make tough fines including deactivation of the domain name for 6 months for those try to shorcut around the system

In the areas regarding trademark issues. If a user aquires a domain name and makes a viable use of it, they have rights to keep it and should not be forced to give it up. If I owned a cellular phone company called "Mat Tel" and registered the name "mattel.com" for my business, should I be forced to give up my name for to the toy company. No.

Mattel should have to register matteltoys.com, or whatever else they choose.

Now, if I bought the mattel.com domain and posted a for sale sign then yes Mattel should pay no more than $500 and I should be required to release the domain because of trademark issues.

As a web author and space provider, it is tough to help a customer pick a domain name that is not registered and closly matches their business name, but we do it.

Thank you,
Brian

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site