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

[cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices

  To: cctlds.mail@wipo.int
  Subject: [cctlds-comments] WIPO ccTLD Best Practices
  From: henry.olsson@justice.ministry.se
  Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:20:47 +0100

 

Name: Henry Olsson
Organization: Ministry of Justice, Stockholm
Position: Special Government Adviser
1) I agree with the contents of footnote 1 on page 9 of the
Best Practices 
Paper about the bad faith requirement
2 In addition, I question the need for three-member panels; not much value is 
added compared to what a sole panelist can achieve and it adds considerable 
practical complications in terms of organization of the work. Therefore, I 
personally avoid serving on such panels
3) A practical problem which has arisen is the determination of when a 
trademark right actually exists in cases where there is no registration. First, 
it is not easy to determine in an administrative proceeding if a rights exists 
or not on a legal basis other than registration (for instance, presence on the 
market, or other legal concepts9. Secondly, the borderlines between trademarks 
and trade names is frequently also problematic in such cases. Therefore, there 
could be some merit in requesting registration as a basis for invoking a 
trademark right in a domain name dispute (I leave aside the question of where 
the registration should exist, which is discussed on page 10
4) Finally, this problem of the legal basis for the trademark right invoked 
leads me to question the wisdom in the rule that the panelist should not be of 
the same nationality as one of the parties. Especially when a non-registered 
trademark right is invoked, a panelist from that country of often the only one 
who is actually in a position to determine with some degree of certainty 
whether such a right exists or not.

Back to Browse Comments for WIPO ccTLD Best Practices