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: International.Trademark.Association@ftp.wipo.int (INTA)
Date: 11 Sep 2000


 International Trademark Association (INTA) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6710 United States of America September 11, 2000 Dear Mr. Gurry: INTA appreciates the continuing work being done by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop recommendations regarding intellectual property issues associated with Internet domain names. We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on The Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIO Internet Domain Name Process (RFC-1). INTA applauds WIPO's commitment to explore and develop findings and recommendations regarding the means to combat bad faith, abusive and unfair practices involving domain names. Because RFC-1 is not seeking specific comments addressing the substance of the issues, INTA will not comment at this time. However, we reserve the right to do so in the future as this process continues. RFC-1 specifically asks, in addition to those issues already listed in the RFC, whether any further issues should be included in the scope of WIPO's work. As discussed below, INTA encourages WIPO to include in its study and consultation several additional issues relating to the intersection of intellectual property rights and the DNS. WIPO's Report on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues (the Final Report), contained specific recommendations for creating definitions of bad faith or abusive registration of domain names with respect to the protection of trademarks. These definitions have been incorporated, to a large extent, in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, now Section 43(d) of the Lanham Act. Several other countries, including Belgium and Italy, are now considering anticybersquatting legislation. Unfortunately, these pending measures, differ from each other not only in their treatment of bad faith or abusive registration, but in their grounds for establishing a cybersquatting cause of action and the remedies available to the trademark owner. Japan and other countries may also soon introduce their own versions of anticybersquatting legislation in the near future. Clearly, national, state, and provincial legislation in this area is growing and contain potentially inconsistent treatment. Consequently, in an effort to secure harmonization, we recommend that WIPO include in the scope of the next RFC input on how best to provide guidance to member states concerning the creation of anticybersquatting legislation. RFC-1 also refers generally to "technical solutions for domain name collision control." We believe that it would be important for WIPO to lend its expertise to study and comment on technical means for improvement the WHOIS database and develop a set of best practices for those operating WHOIS databases. INTA has been an active advocate in ICANN, Europe and the U.S. Congress, on the need for a fully searchable, open and freely available WHOIS database that works across a variety of platforms despite the growing the number of registration authorities inputting data into such databases. The trademark community has faced numerous problems in accessing information and obtaining accurate information from the WHOIS database over the past several years. A more extensive overview of WHOIS concerns from ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency can be found at http://ipc.songbird.com/whois_paper.html. Therefore, INTA would strongly encourage WIPO to expand the scope of its study to include this critical issue. Finally, RFC-1 notes that since the publication of WIPO's Final Report, ICANN adopted a number of its recommendations, including best practices for registration authorities. The development of new technology, competition among domain name registration authorities, the proliferation of new ccTLDs and the imminent introduction of new gTLDs, all impact the scope of "best practices". The notion of best practices is clearly a moving target and is an issue that is ripe for further follow up study and evaluation by WIPO in RFC-1. WIPO's further guidance on best practices would be especially helpful for country code administrators as well as resellers of domain names on auction sites. WIPO's continued expertise in this area would be especially welcome. Thank you for your consideration. Our INTA Internet Committee members remain available to be of assistance to WIPO in your future work on this important project. Sincerely, Kimbley L. Muller President