[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues - Clarification on TM filings and DN's
Roeland and all,
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> We really should start monitoring the subject lines folks.
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Randy Bush
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:44 PM
> > To: Cthulhu's Little Helper
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> > Jose - 062599
> > > In the meantime, back to groups A-C. Actually, could we
> > discuss A-E?
> > > They're all supposed to report in 3 weeks, aren't they?
> > no. i suggest we focus on the content/issues as opposed to
> > when someone
> > says that they would like to have results. the
> > meta-discussion only serves
> > to delay actual consideration of content. and when that
> > happens, my first
> > question is who is benefitting. but that is an internal question, not
> > something worth discussing publicly, we have sufficient
> > recriminations to
> > satisfy the most miserable of personalities.
> I disagree when a failure to get consensus on some of the meta issues
> (processes) can provide a failure at the detail level.
> > [ purely personal opinion follows ]
> > in wg a, the two issues that interest me personally are
> > o should the wipo dispute resolution process be confined to
> > cybersquatting
> > / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
> > o should there be a standard dispute resolution process
> > throughout all
> > registrars / registries?
> > on the first point, i think we should do the minimal change to protect
> > legitimate use. wipo proposes much new process and law that
> > has not been
> > well-tested or universally accepted. in the time since nsi put their
> > dispute resolution policy in place, the courts have done much
> > to advance
> > protection against cybersquatting etc. so i ask what is the
> > minimal change
> > we can make in public policy to ensure prudent progress and
> > operation of
> > the net?
> None, Nada, Zilch. It is not ICANN/DNSO place to make new law. Draconian
> approach (not my fave) is to require pre-existing trademark
As you know Roeland, we discussed this last night at some length.
To make this requirement is not realistic or even doable at present
due to existing constraints within the USPTO.
> > on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of
> > uniform policy
> > which i consider cogent. a low-ball anything-goes registrar
> > would capture
> > the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
> > sleaze, especially in a multi-national context. i am
> > undecided, but might
> > become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal*
> > uniform policy
> > to minimize this problem while not preventing market
> > differentiation and
> > experimentation in this area. and i am told that recent
> > court cases have
> > already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy. if so, is this
> > sufficient? if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?
> I think current law is sufficient. A minimal policy, under the law, is
> FCFS and ALWAYS follow court-orders from competent jurisdiction. The
> minimal acceptable additional requirement is to require proof of
> trademark before instantiation. Anything else usurps the law and becomes
> extra-legal, therefore unenforcable.
I think you should correct this slightly. Proof of filing for a TM should
sufficient. Existing constraints within the USPTO, not to mention some
countries such as say Finland for example, would make this impossible
or at least unworkable...
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208