browse comments: WIPO RFC-2

WIPO RFC-2
Korean Industrial Property Office (ICDS@chollian.net)
Mon, 16 Nov 1998 00:59:17 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Kozo Yabe: "WIPO RFC-2"
Previous message: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Solicitors: "WIPO RFC-2"

Attachment: http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process1/rfc/dns_attachments/rfc2/attach911195957.txt

File notes: Attached file is HTML

This is comments from Republic of Korean

Our contact point is;

Mr. Park, Sung-Jun
Deputy Director,
International Cooperation Division
Korean Industrial Property Office
Tel : 82-42-481-5065
Fax : 82-42-472-3459

Comments of Korea to the WIPO RFC-2

14. 1 When an application is received, accurate contact information should be required. However, since thousands of applications are submitted a day, it might be impossible to check the certification for all those applications every time one is submitted. Furthermore, requiring certification is problematic because verifying the certification numbers for countless applications is not easy. Thus it remains to be decided weather an application without a certification number should be accepted. (iv), (v) and (vi) are acceptable.

14.2 In Korea, registration is revoked when an applicant is found to have included false and misleading information in the registration contract. We still lack the methods with which the authorities can effectively screen false and misleading information. It is desired to insert a new provision that allows the authority to respond with registration revocation to the inclusion of false and misleading information.

14.3 Imposing waiting periods will only make settling the disputes that arise after the periods more difficult and the holders of intellectual property rights will have the burden to search the lists of the domain names on their waiting periods on a regular basis. Therefore, imposing waiting periods does not seem to be desirable.

14.4 This can be very effective in preventing warehousing of domain names. We suggest that the rules be changed so that the applicants are required to pay the fees when they register.

14.5 No comment

14.6 We don't see that searching for trademark registration in the databases of other countries prior to the registration would be possible. Even if a system that allows that kind of task existed, there certainly would be cases where different countries use the same names or acronyms. This requirement may have the effect of preventing disputes from arising to a certain extent, but not as much as it will justify the efforts required to build such a system.

14.7 Interlinking databases is necessary to ensure that the interested parties use domain name databases with ease. It will be most helpful to search the names in use if 'whois', 'rwhois' and others can be interlinked.

14.8 Use of directory and listing services while allowing identical names to co-exist seems to be a good idea, but the issue will be weather the applicants will go along with this system.

14.9 gTLD and ccTLD play two completely different sets of roles. The NIC of each country should be given the power to decide the dispute settlement policy concerning ccTLD domain names. The application of the policies will have to be left optional.

14.10 Recently, there are some cases where the people with the rights to operate ccTLDs use the domain names as if they are gTLDs. We believe that the policies concerning ccTLD must be decided by the NIC of each country.

16.1 Court litigation takes a great amount of money and time. Therefore, procedures for mediating or arbitrating between disputing parties are absolutely necessary.

16.2 For these dispute settlement approaches to be effective, the agreement of registrants, registers and registrars seems to be necessary. We also agree to (iv), that the remedies are limited to the status of the domain name itself.

16.3 We believe that the approaches should cover all the domain name disputes arising in the gTLD area. To save time and money, it would be a good idea to leave room for covering all the domain name disputes in adopting the dispute resolution approaches.

16.4 It would be appropriate to limit the registry's and registrar's involvement to a extent that they accept the decision of the dispute settlement body rather than actively participating in the dispute settlement
procedures.

16.5 Delivery and acceptance of service of process is a very difficult issue in Internet related disputes. Since it is difficult in practice to deliver the process to individual persons or corporations, it may be
effective to have the registrar who has contact information handle it. However, such a responsibility could be an enormous burden to the registrar, thus careful consideration is needed before we decide to make the registrar responsible for that matter.

16.6 No comment.

16.7 Legal proceedings in relevant national courts should take place only in special cases, after the relevant parties have decided that they do not accept the dispute resolution for procedural reasons.

16.8 It would be most appropriate to base the decisions on the applicable law. But it may also be desirable to develop special criteria for the resolution of the disputes related to domain names.

16.9 Suspension in the case of an objection should not be implemented automatically. After the decisions of the dispute settlement body or legal courts, domain name holders should be given an opportunity to adopt a new domain name.

16.10 If domain names have been used and remained unchallenged during a certain period of time, and there have been no claims against such domain names in use, the domain name holders should be basically allowed to continue to use the domain. But, if bad faith can be proved, it would be necessary to allow claims against the domains.

16.11 It would be desirable to conclude the dispute resolution procedure in the first review, but a possibility of appeal procedures for special circumstances should not be completely ruled out. It is not only customary but also effective not to incorporate appeal procedures in dispute resolution approaches. Without such appeal procedures, the parties to the dispute will more likely accept the result of the first
review. If there is still a request for such appeal procedures, we can allow the national courts examine whether the decision of the dispute settlement body was procedurally correct on a narrow basis.

16.12 If the dispute resolution does not cover monetary damages and is limited to the decisions concerning the status of domain names (as suggested by 16.2), the costs should be paid by the person who infringed upon the rights of the third party when registering the domain name. Since dispute resolutions do not include ways of being compensated for the party who suffers from damage, it would be inappropriate to make such a party pay the costs associated with dispute resolution procedures.

16.13 It seems to be appropriate to use on-line dispute resolution systems for domain name disputes. In this case, we need a mechanism to verify the claimant and the defendant, such as the encoding of messages by public keys and private keys.

18.1 Even if he/she acquired domain name lawfully, there should be legal sanctions if he/she mislead the consumers by using the domain names with unfair intentions.

18.2 Whether a certain domain name holder infringe the right of well-known mark holder should be decided by following criteria

the application date of the trademark and domain name

competitive relations between the holders of trademarks and domain name

similarity of the services and goods

nature of the use of domain names

liable confusion of consumers

unfair intention of the domain name holder

18.3 The principle of the Paris Convention in protecting well-known marks should be applied to the protection of it from domain names.

18.4 No comment

18.5 Well-known marks should be protected on the new gTLD. On the other hand excessive protection of trademarks might impede the introduction of the new gTLD. Therefore adequate measures should be taken concerning this matter.

18.6 No comment

18.7 No comment

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site