[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline
At 17:14 24-03-2000 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>I'm sorry, but we've seen that WIPO cannot use discretion. Their tortured
>"logic" in the UDRP proves that they will go where the money is, on behalf
>of trademark owners, whose property they are mandated by charter to
>protect (specifically leaving out domain name holders as equal
>intellectual property interests. I spoke with them regarding this
>multiple times over several years, and still there is no change).
Dear Mikki: I hope you are wrong about WIPO. In the past, the IP
community has been concerned that WIPO is too much concerned about the Less
Developed Countries (LDCs).
Let me paste in something from my prior posting:
From a substantive point of view, I believe we must continue to remind
ourselves (and those who read our reports and postings) that the
fundamental purpose of Trademark laws is to protect the
consumer. Stressing the rights of holders of famous trademarks puts the
cart before the horse.
OTOH, the holder of trademarks has the responsibility to police the use of
its marks *specifically to protect the potential consumer*.
A good role for WIPO would be to protect the consumer by helping control
the miss use of marks.
>I also do not feel that registrars adequately protect the rights of users
>to free speech, small business, etc. This is not an appropriate solution
>and an inappropriate conflict of interest.
I hope you're wrong about registrars. We are a registrar and I don't see
that we can our would do anything to interfere with the rights of free speech.