[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-b] Re: (wg-b) food for thought
Sounds like a pretty good test--the kind that trademark law applies to real
trademark infringement. If the name was registered in a way that does not create
confusion and does not disrupt business and is not cybersquatting for financial
gain, I have a hard time figuring out what your objection would be.
DEUTSCH, SARAH B. wrote:
> 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.