[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RESPONSE to submission from noncommercial community
Stuart E. Benson wrote:
> I would add that we should be concerned if someone tries to sell toys over the
> Internet under ToysRUs.com but is not affiliated with the real ToysRUs. Consumer
> protection is important to all of us. These are serious issues, where
> legitimate interests appear to be in conflict. It does not help to deny this.
Nobody does deny it. Such a case would be (and has been) handled under applicable
trademark law in virtually any nation. Recently, the UDRP has been added to the
protections against such cases. Can you tell me what is missing, now?
I would ask participants in this list to focus their comments more carefully on
the issue with which this working group is concerned. We are not concerned here
with whether legitimate trademark rights should be protected in domain name space.
that's a given. We are concerned with the issue of whether famous name protection
should be hardwired mechanically into the domain name assignment process.
Most if not all of the all of the famous name exclusion mechanisms that have been
proposed prevent names from being used BEFORE any judgements about consumer
confusion or illegitimate use can be made.
When real consumer organizations, such as the (US) Consumer Union, the Hong Kong
Consumer Council, et al, start complaining about domain name deception and asking
for stronger trademark protection in domain names, then we will listen. Until
then, I would urge trademark holders to stop appropriating the name and interests
of consumers to rationalize their own interests.