Re: [discuss] Trademarks and WIPO issues - Clarification on TM filings and DN's

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all,

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> We really should start monitoring the subject lines folks.
>
> > [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Randy Bush
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:44 PM
> > To: Cthulhu's Little Helper
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> > Jose - 062599
> >
> > > In the meantime, back to groups A-C.  Actually, could we
> > discuss A-E?
> > > They're all supposed to report in 3 weeks, aren't they?
> >
> > no.  i suggest we focus on the content/issues as opposed to
> > when someone
> > says that they would like to have results.  the
> > meta-discussion only serves
> > to delay actual consideration of content.  and when that
> > happens, my first
> > question is who is benefitting.  but that is an internal question, not
> > something worth discussing publicly, we have sufficient
> > recriminations to
> > satisfy the most miserable of personalities.
>
> I disagree when a failure to get consensus on some of the meta issues
> (processes) can provide a failure at the detail level.
>
> > [ purely personal opinion follows ]
> >
> > in wg a, the two issues that interest me personally are
> >   o should the wipo dispute resolution process be confined to
> > cybersquatting
> >     / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
> >   o should there be a standard dispute resolution process
> > throughout all
> >     registrars / registries?
> >
> > on the first point, i think we should do the minimal change to protect
> > legitimate use.  wipo proposes much new process and law that
> > has not been
> > well-tested or universally accepted.  in the time since nsi put their
> > dispute resolution policy in place, the courts have done much
> > to advance
> > protection against cybersquatting etc.  so i ask what is the
> > minimal change
> > we can make in public policy to ensure prudent progress and
> > operation of
> > the net?
>
> None, Nada, Zilch. It is not ICANN/DNSO place to make new law. Draconian
> approach (not my fave) is to require pre-existing trademark
> registration.

  As you know Roeland, we discussed this last night at some length.
To make this requirement is not realistic or even doable at present
due to existing constraints within the USPTO.

>
>
> > on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of
> > uniform policy
> > which i consider cogent.  a low-ball anything-goes registrar
> > would capture
> > the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
> > sleaze, especially in a multi-national context.  i am
> > undecided, but might
> > become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal*
> > uniform policy
> > to minimize this problem while not preventing market
> > differentiation and
> > experimentation in this area.  and i am told that recent
> > court cases have
> > already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy.  if so, is this
> > sufficient?  if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?
>
> I think current law is sufficient. A minimal policy, under the law, is
> FCFS and ALWAYS follow court-orders from competent jurisdiction. The
> minimal acceptable additional requirement is to require proof of
> trademark before instantiation. Anything else usurps the law and becomes
> extra-legal, therefore unenforcable.

  I think you should correct this slightly.  Proof of filing for a TM should
be
sufficient.  Existing constraints within the USPTO, not to mention some
countries such as say Finland for example, would make this impossible
or at least unworkable...

Regards,


--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208