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

Comment: Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System

Comments in Response to the Secretariat's Questionnaire on the Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System


 

Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks
WIPO
34 Chemin des Colombettes
1211 Genève 20
SUISSE
Telefax 41-22 733 5428

 

Questionnaire on the Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System

 

Having consulted specialists in some institutions (State Symbolic Department of the Chancellory of State, Estonian Informatics Centre), the Estonian Patent Office formulates answers to the questionnaire as follows.

(i) As there exists a lot of official or quasi-official standards for identification a state/country, the protection should not be limited to only one of them; both the complete name (e.g. Eesti Vabariik - Republic of Estonia) and the shorter version (e.g. Eesti - Estonia) should be protected in principle.

(ii) The country names should be protected at least in national language (i.e. official name) and in the languages of international commerce (e.g. the official languages of UN); as regards the translation the broader protection of country names similar to the protection of well-known trade marks under the Paris Convention however may be considered a good example.

(iii) The protection should be extended to all domains (both gTLD and ccTLD, both existing and future).

(iv) Despite of what is said under (iii) any rights acquired in good faith before the date of worldwide adoption of the principles of protection of country names should constitute exceptional seniority rights.

(v) UDRP can be considered the competent forum.

(vi) In principle the protection should extend to identical names/indications. However, where there is a caused damage or fraud, the protection might be broader.

(vii) Although the position of Estonian Informatics Centre is to prefer the absolute protection, the Patent Office finds the protection should be dependent upon bad faith. For example, a tourism bureau of one country might have the possibility to use the country names as components of its domain names.

Yours sincerely
Matti Päts
Director General


Back to List of Comments