browse comments: WIPO RFC-1

WIPO RFC-1
hannes@rupertinternational.co.za
Fri, 21 Aug 1998 06:01:49 -0400

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Ray King: "Back to the issues..."
Previous message: eicher@iso.ch: "WIPO RFC-1"

COMMENTS [to draft Terms of Reference]

A Dispute Prevention

We support the view that recommendations should in the first place address/identify all the "elements that should be contained in a domain name registration contract". While the list of examples provided in paragraph a i)-vi) are clearly not exhaustive [and is likely to eventually incorporate many further items for instance pertaining to renewals, licensing, assignments or even the recordal of a security interest], we nevertheless believe it is equally important for the WIPO Process to consider those elements that should in the opinions of interested parties not be contained in such agreement. This is necessary in order to ensure that the WIPO Process is in a position to evaluate negative comments pertaining to any proposed contract element e.g. introducing pro-active (dispute prevention) measures into a contract such as a "clearance" mechanism.

Dispute Resolution

We believe it will not be practical to restrict the use of dispute resolution approaches to cases involving cyberpiracy. It may therefore prove to be helpful if the terms of reference could be expanded to provide an appropriate definition of cyberpiracy as even cyberpirates are likely to claim legitimate interests in domain names, the fact that trade mark "use" versus "registration" requirements are not afforded equal treatment internationally and the absence of uniform criteria qualifying well-known and famous marks.

B Process for the protection of famous marks in the generic top-level domains

The proposed terms of reference seem to suggest that well-known and famous marks could be afforded a treatment different from ordinary trade marks. If so, then perhaps a separate dispute resolution procedure should be investigated. Paragraph "h" is perhaps too restrictive and could be expanded to read:

"Whether the use of regular domain name dispute resolution procedures will be appropriate to resolve well-known / famous marks (domain names) disputes, alternatively the establishment of separate dispute resolution processes e.g. in order to consider cancellation of a famous mark no longer being used "

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site