About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

browse comments: WIPO RFC-1

WIPO RFC-1
eggplant@ix.netcom.com
Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:48:27 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: marcmcswain@email.msn.com: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: B.K. DeLong: "Domain Name disputes"

From: eggplant@ix.netcom.com
Subject: WIPO RFC-1

I see no reason to protect tradmarks in the existing gTLDs. Such protection would limit political expression for individuals and groups commenting on the behavior of corporations.

Already, we have seen Wal-Mart attempt to shut down www.walmartsucks.com over the use of the wallmart trademark in the domain name (to cite just one example). This web site is devoted to archiving complaints about Wall-Mart's business practices.

If trademarks/corporate-names are protected as domain names in the existing gTLDs, then corporations will immediately start asking for tradmarks to be protected within domain names as well. They will begin using decisions in relatively normal disputes (for example, if there was a William Allmart, CPA who registered the domain name walmartcpa.com, and such a domain name were revoked as a result of the similarity in names) as precidents in an attempt to reduce or eliminate sites such as wallmartsucks.com.

If corporations feel that there is a compelling need to maintain a gTLD where domain names are distributed in a more corporate-friendly manner, then they should create a tm gTLD, so individuals can go to www.walmart.tm, and be assured that the web site is actually associated with Wal-Mart. Granted, this .tm gTLD will not have the same level of familiarity as .com, and will not be automatically searched by web browsers when the user types "walmart" as the URL, but these conditions would undoubtably change in time, as user's become more accustomed to the gTLD and new versions of browsers are released.

Like it or not, .com serves not just companies, but pretty much anything that is not military, an organized political group, or a school. It has become a common area, not a corporate area, and should not be regulated with corporate goals.

The individual countries should be responsible for setting and enforcing policies for their own ccTLDs.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site
Next message: marcmcswain@email.msn.com: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: B.K. DeLong: "Domain Name disputes"
https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/