browse comments: WIPO RFC-1

WIPO RFC-1
iad@email.jpo-miti.go.jp
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 03:58:34 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: eicher@iso.ch: "WIPO RFC-1"
Previous message: mheltzer@inta.org: "New RFC-1"

Attachment: http://wipo2.wipo.int/dns_attachments/attach903340714.doc

File notes: WORD97

Comments on RFC-1 by WIPO

As regards the Request for Comments on Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (WIPO RFC-1), I would hereby like to submit the following comments. I hope you would find our comments helpful.

Please be noted, however, we are submitting these comments based on the discussion by a working group of the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) and, therefore, they are not an official comment by the Japanese government.

Jyoji Hashimoto
Director-General]
First Examination Department
Japanese Patent Office

1. Timetable

(a) I believe it is important that those who have an interest in this issue should be able to directly discuss the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process with the acting staff members of WIPO and the panel of experts at the Regional Hearings and Consultations.

The sites of these hearings and consultations should be decided taking into consideration regional representation and depth of interest of the country/region. Therefore, I strongly hope Japan should be designated as one of the host countries.

(b) According to your explanation, the recommendations, an outcome of this process, will be submitted to the New Organization and reported to the member states of WIPO.

If these recommendations be made available to an external organization as an official proposal of WIPO, such proposal should be made after discussion among the WIPO member countries. For example, we propose to discuss the legal issues that the panel of experts would regard most important at a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks (SCT).

2. Draft Terms of Reference

(c) All of the items listed under "A." and "B." of Paragraph 4 of your request are relating to important matters, and the WIPO member countries have discussed these matters at international conferences such as the Consultative Meetings held by WIPO in 1997.

At the first stage, the main points should be made clear after a thorough discussion. However, to effectively deal with the above matters in a limited time period of eight months, we propose that the materials obtained as a result of past discussions should be utilized. For example, we propose to widely circulate the Third Revised Draft Substantive Guidelines Concerning Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels and give each member country an opportunity to express its opinion after circulation.

(d) A substantial discussion about the relationship between trademarks and Internet domain names is essential for the issues mentioned in "A."-Dispute Resolution- c), and in "B."-b).

(e) With regard to "C.," however, fewer items of discussion are listed.

Thus, we propose to add the following items.
i) In what cases should a domain name be regarded as used as a trademark?
ii) In what cases should a use of a domain name be regarded as illegal?
iii) Are there any special problems peculiar to the use of domain names, which cannot be solved with the existing laws for trademarks or unfair- competition prevention?
iv) If there are any, how these problems should be solved?
v) Can these problems be better settled by administrative means rather than legal procedures?

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site