[wg-b] RE: (wg-b) food for thought

["DEUTSCH, SARAH B." <SARAH.B.DEUTSCH@bellatlantic.com>]

     The latest draft of the UDRP is fatally flawed.  It provides no real 
     remedy for trademark owners and in my opinion will not be used unless 
     drastic changes are made.  Contrary to the statement made below, the 
     latest draft of the policy does not give the trademark owner the right 
     to challenge any registration that is confusingly similar -- the 
     standard under US trademark law.  Trademark owners must prove, among 
     other hurdles, that the domain name was registered PRIMARILY for the 
     purpose of disrupting business of a COMPETITOR; or that the domain 
     name holder attempted to attract for FINANCIAL GAIN, users to its site 
     by INTENTIONALLY creating confusion by using a mark that is 
     SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL to the trademark or service mark.
     
     As you can see, this test is totally unacceptable.  If this is the 
     policy, no one will use it.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: (wg-b) food for thought
Author:  "Milton Mueller" <SMTP:mueller@syr.edu> at GCOHUB
Date:    9/23/99 2:10 PM


This discussion is proceeding as if the alternative to famous marks 
exclusions is pure court litigation. That is not correct.
     
We cannot lose sight of the fact that a Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, 
which ICANN is in the process of adopting, will give famous mark holders the

following:
     
a) accurate and complete contact info of all registrants
b) right to identify and challenge any registration that is identical to or 
"confusingly" similar to their mark in a process that is much less expensive

and faster than the courts.
     
I don't see what exclusion adds to that process, except additional expense, 
bureaucracy, and opportunities for abuse of domain name holders.
     
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
     
> Famous marks, because they are famous, also have the wherewithall to
> defend their marks. Start-up enterprises do not have this, but they also 
> do not yet have a mark, or brand, to defend yet.
     
--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u 
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/