Re: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com Decision

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, at 17:20 [=GMT+0100], Michael Froomkin wrote:

> Yes, yes, no.  See below.
>
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> >This is more interesting than I thought at first. Does it mean that if
> >barcelona.com was registered with a Spanish registrar, the outcome might
> >have been different?
> >
> Yes.
>
> >Appeal against a UDRP decision has to take place
> >where the registrar is, isn't that so?
> >
> >
> Yes, except that the UDRP complainant could have picked the registrant's
> jurisdiction.

That could be in the same country as the registrar. A PO Box Inc.

> And the registrant is of course always free to pick any
> place with jurisdiction over the TM owner, since this isn't a true
> "appeal" but is technically a sort of collageral attack.

I am not sure I get this. To stop the execution of the UDRP decision one
has to file in the registrar's or registrant's jurisdiction. No?

> >Is there a country somewhere in the world that hates trademarks?
> >
> Not really.  Every economy worth mentioning

How about .cc or .tv not to mention .tm?

> is a member of the Paris
> Convention, which substantially harmonizes basic trademark law.  Most
> major economies are also members of the Madrid Protocol, which adds
> additional protections, and many of those also belong to TRIPS, which
> really goes over the top.   The Paris convention is nearly universal.
> But I think North Korea is not a member...

And China?

> >I might
> >set up a registrar business there then. If there are several countries
> >that think more lightly about trademark rights, I'd like to know one where
> >court cases are reasonably priced.
> >
> Fuggadaboutit.

Yes, I better. Though it would be nice to know when one registers a
domain, where it is best protected against reverse domain name hijacking.

> >On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, at 12:02 [=GMT+0200], richard.hill@itu.int wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Under US law, says the US court.
> >>
> >>But what about Spanish law?  Not applicable in US court, because of ACPA and
> >>the general principle of territoriality of trademark law, says the US court.
> >>
> >>However, I suppose, the City Council of Barcelona could bring an action in
> >>Spanish courts, under Spanish law, if it felt that the activities exercised
> >>under the disputed domain name were violating Spanish law in Spain.
> >>
> >>If such an action suceeded in Spain, then the question of whether or not the
> >>Spanish court's decision could be enforced in the US is probably a
> >>complicated question.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>Richard Hill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
> >>>Sent: Monday, 02 June 2003 22:43
> >>>To: [GA]
> >>>Subject: [ga] 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Barcelona.com
> >>>Decision
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As if anyone needed to know, "Barcelona" is not a trademark
> >>>of the City of
> >>>Barcelona:
> >>>
> >>>http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021396.P.pdf
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It looks like an update will be needed here to avoid false
> >>>advertising:
> >>>http://www.oblon.com/barcelona/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

--
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