RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 4:32 PM -0500 10/10/02, Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato wrote:
>Generics per se cannot be registered as trademarks, at least not under
>Mexican, French nor German trademark law, in their present state. There is
>an IP specialist here who declared to the press that he beleives that we
>should forget about domain names altogether and go back to IP addresses, but
>I don't agree with that.

If he'd said "forget about trying to match domain names to TM's", I'd be
inclined to agree.

>However, an argument I sustained in my professional thesis on the regulation
>of domain names in Mexico is the following:
>
>1. Mexican trade & service mark and copyright laws are of public interest,
>and they forbid the appropriation of generic terms, amongst others.

OK. With you so far.

>2. The Federal Civil Code sets forth that acts which contravene public
>interest laws shall be null.

Still with you.

>3. The registration of generics as domain names consists in an appropriation
>of said terms, thus it contravenes the aforesaid laws.

Only if such registration is an attempt to use such a term as a trademark.
Mere registration of a generic term dosn't contravene.

>4. Consequently, said registrations are null.

So you're going to go to mercadolibre.com.mx and tell them they can't use
the name anymore?

>IP specialists here seem to agree. Constructive and reasonable comments on
>the foregoing are wellcome.

I don't think you and I are on the same planet, let alone in the same country.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html