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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

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.
--MM

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.