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

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

     I think the warning system is certainly worth exploring as a 
     supplement -- not a replacement -- for the proactive exclusion.  Has 
     anyone vetted the idea with the registrars and determined the costs or 
     technical feasibility of implementing such as system?   I think the 
     registrars would reject the idea because it would require them to slow 
     down their systems by adding an additional step in the automated 
     registration process in which all domain name registration requests 
     are referred to a centralized database, which would then do a check 
     and spew back the warning.
     
     A key question is when the warning would take place -- before or after 
     the applicant has submitted its application and fee.  If the applicant 
     receives the warning after the automated process -- the warning is 
     virtually useless.  After paying the bucks, few domain name holders 
     would voluntarily relinquish their domain name registrations.  They 
     would still wait for the trademark owner to come after them and sue.
     
     The proactive exclusion helps protect their essential famous mark.  I 
     am open to the idea of the pre-registration warning system, if crafted 
     properly, as a way to protect all the cybersquatting on variations of 
     famous marks.


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
Author:  "d3nnis" <SMTP:d3nnis@mciworld.com> at GCOHUB
Date:    9/23/99 8:40 AM


Sarah --
     
I would value hearing your viewpoint on the use of  neutral 
warning system as discussed a couple days ago.
     
My apologies if you already have done so:  mailbox problems 
have caused me to lose mail recently.
     
I understand you prefer to have an exclusion process.  My questions are: 
in the absence of an exclusion process, would you favor a warning system?
     
And, with or without an exclusion process, do you feel that a warning system

is practicable?
     
Regards
     
Dennis
     
     
     
----------
>      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/ 
>
>