Re: [wg-b] "Oops" domains

[KathrynKL@aol.com]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Next question: do we also want to rule out of scope the question of whether
> nisan, niisan and nisssan should be reserved/blocked/actionable if "nissan"
> is found to be a famous mark?

Milton Mueller responded:

I think we do want to rule that out of scope. That is a can of worms that 
could
create more disputes than it resolves.

I think both Harald and Milton raise good points.  It is my hope that 
Harald's concerns about purposeful misspellings are taken care of in a 
different place --- back in WIPO Final Report Ch. 3 on the definition of 
cybersquatting.   Let me illustrate below why spellings close to a well-known 
word are a dangerous slippery slope and why WIPO Ch. 3 solves the problem 
already:

Misspellings.  Lots and lots of things are one character away from something 
else.  There is a rock group called Enema of the State and movies and books 
about "Enemy of the State."  A former popular TV puppet- ALF- had fan clubs 
and ALF is one character away from ALA -- the large and wellknown American 
Library Association.  PETA -- a group which fights against pet ownership (and 
lots of other things) is one character away from PETS -- a term which will be 
used by pet owners for hobby clubs and information groups.  No stretch of 
trademark law wants PETA shutting down a PETS discussion group.

But if someone purposesly registered Nisan (one s) and tries to market cars, 
they will get caught under traditional trademark infiringment -- and the 
cybersquatting provisions -- for having a domain name mistakenly similar to a 
trademark which is causing confusion as to the origin of goods and services.  
Classic trademark infringement -- domain name will be taken. Done.   

Our comprehensive work on cybersquatting, ch. 3, is one of the main reasons I 
wonder about the need for famous marks Ch. 4.  Why don't we see how Ch. 3 
works before creating new global regulation? 

kathy