[process2-comments] RFC-2

Name: Brian Baughn Organization: cityofsalinas.com Position: webmaster Regarding "geographical names" or "tradenames" WIPO is being used as a tool by attorneys who misrepresent the law and the backdoor the US Courts by threatening and turning to WIPO for remedy that runs against rational use of trademark laws. In this case the potential "complainant" the Government Agency, the "Salinas Municipal Corporation" through a private attorney (Gervaise Davis, past WIPO panelist) threatened the domain name holder with penalties under the Anticybersquatting Act and then WIPO resolution. This attorneys letter has no basis in the law, in fact he completely misrepresented the law to the domain name owner in that this particular domain was registered in April of 1999 and the Act was not signed into law until November of 1999. The penalties do not apply and if the Salinas Municipal Corporation were successful in the US Courts (which it would not be) the BEST that they could do would be "injunctive relief". Of course the City of Salinas is not taking this case to the US Courts but to WIPO. One might ask why? If the case is strong and both parties are under the jurisdiction of the US then why go to WIPO, it could easily be resovled in Federal Court. One answer seems to be the "barcelona.com" case. A WIPO ruling so ridiculous that it has fueled the passions of many critics of WIPO. If WIPO loses all credibility via cases like the pending "cityofsalinas.com" case where will the legitimate complainant find relief? In this case there are several undisputed facts 1. the Salinas Municipal Corporation owns no trademark on City of Salinas. 2. The "City" has a business relationship with a private internet hosting company through which it contracts "internet services" 3. The private company had an interest in "cityofsalinas.com" two years ago. 4. The attorney the "City" hired has a business relationship with the same private internet company. 5. The attorney the "City" hired misrepresented the black letter of the law (ACPA) by stating "it was not a wise risk" on this domain holders part "to risk the SEVERE penalties of the Cybersquatting Act". 6. The Salinas Municipal Corporation has NO property interest in the domain name "cityofsalinas". WIPO needs some clear policy regarding these abuses and SANCTIONS are in order in cases of "reverse domain name hijacking". Under the current conditions any complainant, valid or otherwise, can go to WIPO pay 1500 dollars US and try to "steal" a name. What's to loose. In this case the City has an annual budget of $116,000,000. $1500 to hijack a name plus $3500 in legal advising is a small risk to gain control of the domain it wishes to control.