Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]UDRP Questionnaire

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Marilyn and all,

It is very difficult for a very blunt man such as myself to tiptoe around the
bottom line issue here, so I will not.

The UDRP has been manipulated and captured by the IP and TRIPS lawyers.  They
are taking a grain of sand and building beach front condos.  International
treaties and sovereign country laws should dispense the rules.  But IP
interests are in fact violating those by enforcing through the UDRP other and
inconsistent rulings.  WIPO justifies it's very existance by expanding and
creating rulings that infringe not upon the trademarks but upon the sovereign
status of individuals and Nations in order to further big business
manipulations.  I am well aware that I am blowing a horn in the wilderness but
let us call a spade a spade.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> I would agree that the original intent of the UDRP was that it focus on a
> narrow set of problem/collisions.  It sounds as if you are saying, William,
> that "morphing" is occurring, and more cases should be brought before
> courts.  thanks for your clarification and response. Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:33 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; wsl@cerebalaw.com; ga-udrp; Jefsey Morfin;
> ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp]
> UDRP Questionnaire
>
> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Saturday, June 30, 2001, 4:11:52 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > Folks, while we can get very excited about options and ideas, we do need
> to
> > reflect back to what the law is...
>
> I think instead what we need to do is decide upon a set of limitations
> where a trademark holder may take advantage of the UDRP rather than a
> court room, and that those limits may not provide them the same
> protections they would have in a court room.
>
> I rather like the idea of flat out prohibiting UDRP claims on domains
> over 3 years old.  That forces the mark holder to use a court room to
> make claims against domains that have been in use for a while, setting
> a higher standard.
>
> I would say that claims based on locality names also be excluded as
> previously mentioned.
>
> Claims based on a domain in which the domain or a substantive portion
> of the domain is made up of all or some of the registrant's actual
> name be excluded, including business names.
>
> If a domain name that is the same as the business name is infringing,
> then the business' name itself must also be infringing, so there is a
> larger problem here that should be addressed in court, not in a UDRP
> hearing.
>
> I think that the UDRP should be restricted to a very narrow class of
> marks, and that certain domains should qualify for exemptions from
> particular claims.
>
> This does not deprive the mark holder of any rights, since they have
> the same legal resource as before.  It is only denying them the
> privilege of using the UDRP process.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html