[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-b] RE: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
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
______________________________ Reply Separator
Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
Author: "d3nnis" <SMTP:email@example.com> at GCOHUB
Date: 9/23/99 8:40 AM
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
> 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
> 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
> 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:firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> a) accurate and complete contact info of all registrants
> b) right to identify and challenge any registration that is identical to
> "confusingly" similar to their mark in a process that is much less
> and faster than the courts.
> I don't see what exclusion adds to that process, except additional
> 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/