RE: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

It's actually better than that. Treaties were ratified, last January,
that made cross-border trademark law more effective. I leave it to the
legal community to detail how. The situation you are worried about isn't
as bad as you think.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cthulhu's Little Helper
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 2:46 PM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: discuss@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> Jose - 062599
>
>
>
> On 28 June 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 28, 1999 at 01:57:38PM -0700, Cthulhu's Little
> Helper wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, is it even possible to form a minimal UDR policy
> that wouldn't
> >> basically read as deferring to each country's laws on the matter?
> >
> >I have a trademark on "songbird" in the area of web hosting etc.
> >Even on my tiny scale I do business worldwide.  How does my tiny
> >business defend its trademark in Singapore?  A uniform DRP is a
> >requirement for new gTLDs.
> >
> >People overlook the fact that the real beneficiaries of a UDRP are
> >small businesses.  Big businesses can afford the legal bills.  Small
> >businesses cannot.
>
>
> I wasn't disputing the benefits or detriments of one.  I was
> merely asking
> whether it would be possible to formulate one that didn't
> simply point at
> the individual country's laws and say "Abide by this in this country".
>
> If the registrar operates under one country's laws,
> particularly if that
> registrar is in cooperation with that local government,
> there's nothing
> really stopping said registrar or government from saying, "Your rules
> do not apply in our country.  We will abide by our own laws in this
> matter."
>
> --
>  Mark C. Langston
>