[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).
We now have a clear record to point to in WIPO's decisions under the
UDRP and I'm afraid that many of our fears have been confirmed.
>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.
That would indeed be good.
>>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.
I meant no offense, Bob, but the fact is that many registrars have
business considerations that are first and foremost in their minds.
While they obviously wish to protect their customers (hence make for
more customers....) free speech issues are not in the forefront of
their philosophy. We need additional safeguards in place.