[process2-comments] Comments on WIPO/OLOA/EC/RFC1

 Comments on WIPO2 RFC-1 Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process Having regard to the fact that substantive comment regarding the issues raised in the WIPO RFC-1 document was not called for at this time the following is submitted: 1. Scope of Issues in the Second WIPO Process It might be prudent to consider the exploration and development of findings and recommendations relating to bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of names corresponding to national governmental bodies, for example, swedish-government.com. It might be prudent to consider the exploration and development of findings and recommendations relating to bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of names corresponding to registered plant variety protections. 2. Personal Names A critical question is what constitutes a "Personal Name". The question of whether the contemplated protection would extend to first and last names, last names only, official titles, group names, domain names containing any of the foregoing or domain names containing some combination of the foregoing should be set out as an issue for discussion. A second consideration which merits inclusion as a separately designated issue is the requisite degree of fame, if any, associated with a name required to trigger the contemplated protection. There is a question as to whether protection should extend to both living and deceased individuals and whether protection sould be limited to names which enjoy some form of commercial usage. There is also a question regarding the nexus between the contemplated protection and existing protection available under national legislation. 3. International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical Substances While no specific comment is made on this issue the general comments applicable to all issues do apply equally to INNs. 4. Names of International Intergovernmental Organizations The listing of relevant issues should include the question of what is an acceptable threshold required for achieving status as an International Intergovernmental Organization. 5. Geographical Indications, Geographical Terms or Indications of Source The question of what constitutes a "geographical indication", "geographical terms" or "indications of source" is of critical significance and should be identified as an issue as should the standing required of the entities challenging use of a allegedly objectionable domain name. The question of whether protection should extend only to protected geographical indications should be included. 6. Trade-names The issue of what sort of name is properly considered a "trade-name" should be included. The question of the appropriate status accorded registered company names should be considered. The issue of whether the same safeguards should be brought in for well-known trade-names as for well-known trade-marks should be considered. 7. Comments applicable to all categories of names referenced in WIPO RFC-1 The following questions apply to all categories and should be included as specific issues: Would the scope of contemplated protection extend to phonetic equivalents of the names in question? What is the impact of combining an objectionable portion with portion which might not be considered objectionable, for example a generic term? How should similar, but non-identical, names be treated? Are there further and better options for resolving the expected/experienced/perceived difficulties surrounding names? 8. Procedures and Timetable It is considered that the contemplated expansion of protection to cover names has the potential to unduly hinder commerce by honest domain name holders and the suggested procedure and timetable should allow for a thorough assessment of the issues involved by interested parties. The issues such as what constitutes bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair registration, are difficult to resolve at the best of times and possess an enhanced degree of complication in the context of names. * * *