<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Weikers position on UDRP
Ronald, I would like to share your thoughtful note on the UDRP, which
has a lot of interesting suggestions, with a few other lists. Jamie
"Ronald N. Weikers" wrote:
> Changes should be made to the UDRP to require a balancing of interests,
> which is found in trademark law. The following changes will resolve most
> consumers groups' very valid concerns, and still uphold trademark law.
>
> First, we should give panelists the discretion to award the prevailing
> party their attorney's fees and costs from the non-prevailing party (like
> the U.S.'s Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), in order to deter
> reverse domain name hijacking. In particular, panelists may (but are not
> required to) award costs when a complainant is found to have abused the
> administrative process, or when a respondent is found to have acted in bad
> faith and to have no legitimate interests. Read further to see why only a
> true, hard-core cybersquatter-respondent might be subjected to this.
[snip]
--
James Love mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030 fax 1.202.234.5176
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|