Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I think one of the missing pieces in the UDRP ruleset is a procedure for
> the independent review of dispute resolution providers' track record, and
> the resulting removal of a resolution service provider from ICANN's list if
> the track record is not found satisfactory.
ICANN's policy statement on the UDRP *should* be more clear. It
should give examples of cases where domains are *not* confusingly
similar, it should tell panels that criticism, parody and rights to
associate are legitimate uses of a domain, that different TLDs can give
enough distinction to domains that they need not only look at the 2LD,
and they should do something about the fact that panels often ignore the
bad faith criteria.
Also, and this is going a bit further, ICANN's policy statement on
the UDRP should make it clear that merely having a service mark will not
give a firm the right to stop anyone else from using the same string in
a domain name, and give several examples to illustrate this.
If ICANN did all of this and probably some more, it could make the
UDRP something that the Internet community would support, because it
would be percieved as more fair and more balanced than it is now.
The trademark community should be satisfied with a UDRP that limits
itself more than it does now, and recognizes the public's legitimate
rights to use words that have been subject to a trade mark somewhere.
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
Washington, DC 20036 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html