[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[comments-wipo] FW: [council] INTA Response to WGA
The International Trademark Association (INTA), an organization of
>approximately 3,600 members from 120 countries, respectfully submits this
>e-mail to all members of the DNSO Working Group A. Below we will cover the
>Association's position on all of the questions posed by IPC
>interim-President Jonathan Cohen. First, however, we will offer some
>general thoughts on the WIPO process.
> The WIPO process was thorough. In a recent letter to Ralph Nader,
>Esther Dyson, interim -Chairperson of ICANN, stated that WIPO "led a
>10-month study, held 15 public meetings with more than 1,300 participants."
>In addition, the panel of experts convened by WIPO was internationally
>diverse and consisted of varying points of view. The hearings were
>conducted all over the globe and the process was conducted in a fair and
>open manner. In short, INTA supports the recommendations put forth by WIPO
>and has said so on any number of occasions.
> Even some of the harshest critics of the WIPO process have
>acknowledged that it is a significant improvement over the interim
document. WIPO did in fact modify the report to accommodate the concerns of
the non-commercial constituency. Case in point, the call for further study
on the creation of a non-commercial TLD.
> However, critics still remain. INTA believes that their concerns
>should be addressed. Therefore, perhaps the DNSO should consider reaching
>out to these individuals, rather than revisiting questions already
addressed by the WIPO report that have achieved consensus.
>II Questions for Working Group A
>Q: Should the WIPO dispute resolution process be confined to
> cybersquatting / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
>A: Trademark infringement and dilution problems have increased
> exponentially over the past few years, in large part, due to acts of
> "cybersquatting." Cybersquatters target trademark owners for a
variety of reasons, including:
> 1. to extract payment from the rightful owner of the mark, who
> are likely to have greater financial resources;
> 2. to offer the domain name for sale to third parties on a Web
> 3. to use such names for pornographic sites or otherwise
> capitalize on customer confusion; and
> 4. to engage in consumer fraud, including counterfeiting
> Cybersquatters continue to damage the growth of electronic commerce,
>cause consumer fraud and confusion as to the true source of products and
>services, and deprive legitimate trademark owners of substantial revenues
>and consumer goodwill.
> INTA's Board has publically condemned cybersquatting and has urged
>the development of appropriate mechanisms to help stop this harmful
>activity. Mandatory ADR for cases involving alleged bad faith, fraud and
>cybersquatting is just such a mechanism. To have the new ADR system go
>beyond these cases, however, is unwise at this time, since trademark laws
>throughout the world are not harmonized. The resulting decisions from an
>ADR system that is overly broad will actually do great harm to ongoing
>efforts in various circles to foster this harmonization. We therefore must
>respectfully disagree with the ICANN Board's resolution on this issue. We
>urge our colleagues in the DNSO to support a call to have the Board reverse
>its decision and establish an interim ADR system that is limited to the
>above listed cases.
>Q: Should there be a standard dispute resolution process throughout the
> registrars / registries?
>A: Yes. A lack of uniformity and specificity will only lead to
> confusion on the part of trademark and domain name holders, chaos in
the Internet community, and in the end increasing, rather than
>Q: Should the dispute resolution be voluntary, mandatory, or a
> combination of both?
>A: Mandatory in cases of alleged bad faith, fraud and cybersquatting.
> There should not be any type of ADR, at least initially, for
> broader than these cases.
>Q: Should there be some method for contracting out of the right to seek
> a court ruling if one undertakes to submit to dispute resolution?
>A: INTA maintains that nothing in the dispute policy should preclude a
> party from utilizing the national court systems as appropriate.