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-1


[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

[process2-comments] RFC-1


To: process.mail@wipo.int
Subject: [process2-comments] RFC-1
From: David_Medberry@hp.com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:18:18 +0200


 Name: David Medberry Organization: self Position: Engineer It appears that the WIPO wants to extend protection to any corporation for any name, phrase, or location ever associated (or that ever will be) associated with said corporation. This is preposterous! Consider for example cheyenne.com--who should have the rights to this 2LD? Cheyenne Software, Cheyenne Jeans, Cheyenne Wyoming, Cheyenne Smith, or the Cheyenne Indian nation? My vote would be (overwhelmingly) for whomever registers it first. The internet is a land of opportunity--please keep it so. Certainly abuse happens (and needs to be regulated) but not by adding additional bureaucracy to an already litigious bureaucractic system. If I register wiporfc1.com (although someone probably already has) and put up an ANIT RFC-1 site, this is my right and I EXPECT YOU to protect and maintain that right. On the other hand, if I register www.wipo.com and do nothing with it other than offer to sell it, then sure, take it away--that is de fact cybersquatting. No additional regulations are required! I fear that you will be granting jeans.de to Levi Strauss and cola.uk to Coca-Cola and perhaps football.au to the NFL. Or worse, that you will give Anaheim.com to Disney. Accepting this RFC-1 will open the door to unnecessary litigation/arbitration. No need exists, and no good can come of it.