Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[william@dso.net (William X. Walsh)]

On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:40:56 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
wrote:

>Furthermore, the WIPO report, last time I looked, explicitly stated
>that its recommendations don't supersede local law, and that a
>complainant would always have the option of taking their case to
>court. 

Thats the rubbing point!

The shift of the burden to prove a case in court has been shifted from
the Trademark holder to the domain holder.

They then, in effect, have to carry the burden of filing a court case
and proving that indeed they did not violate the trademark.

This is unacceptable.

>> Or support claims that do not meet the standards of proof?
>
>Aside from the fact that I don't think there is any such thing in the 
>WIPO report, which standards of proof are you talking about?

Standards of proof under the law.  Hard to pinpoint what those are,
isn't it?  That is exactly why Manadatory Arbitration is not
acceptable.

There is no need to MANDATE arbitration, except to benefit the
Trademark holder.  There is NOTHING stopping the two parties involved
in an action to voluntarily submitting to arbitration.  There is no
compelling reason to MANDATE it, except to benefit the trademark
holder.

Your earlier contention that this would help the small business owner
is nothing short of disingenuous.



--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934

The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.