RE: [nc-udrp] WIPO 2 Report - INN's

["Katrina Burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>]

{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2 Arial;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs20\par
Below are my thoughts on the INN debate\par
\par
1)  firstly looking at it as a consumer - if I wanted to find something out about a product on the Internet I might start with a search engine that told me about Ibuprofen, for example.  A search at Google.com takes me to a site http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/ibup.htm which gives some basic information.  I might also look at some of the other sites and find out what I want to know, particular with regard to what it is, what it does and who manufacturers it.  Like all information on the web I am more likely to find credible the information which is presented well, comes from a reliable source and doesn't bombard me with adverts for unrelated matters or porn sites!  A lot of this information is also available on pack and product leaflets.  As a consumer I couldn't care less who owns the domain name so long as it leads me to the information I am looking for, if it doesn't I will go somewhere else.\par
\par
2)  now with my trade mark attorney hat on, I think many of the commentators to this report were in favour of protecting INNs because they are IP specialists.  WIPO naturally attracts those sort of commentators.  The prohibition of the exact registration of the INN is, in my view a waste of time.  It will not stop people using it as keywords, metatags, text etc and indeed why should people be prohibited from using the INN?  If I sell cakes and own cakes.com that is my good fortune in getting the cakes.com domain name early and so long as the information I put on my site is interesting to the consumer and has something to do with cakes, so what that I get an advantage over other cake sellers?  Why cannot this be the case for the generic name in the pharmaceutical industry?  Of course it would make a lot of sense if the INN where it relates to a patent was owned by the patent holder and I can see why the big pharmaceutical companies would want to do that. In these cases the ph!
 armaceutical company makes the suggestion as to the INN recommended name anyway so they could be the first to get it as they will have "insider knowledge" anyway.\par
\par
However, so long as the consumer is not being misled by the information on the site what is the problem?  Most of the people looking up this sort of information will be specialists anyway and will be quickly able to see if they are in an irrelevant site.  There is hardly a public safety issue here at all.\par
\par
3)  if the World Health Organisation (WHO) were to own all the INNs that were approved what would they do with them? - are they going to put on reliable and public safety information about INNs? - That would seem to be a sensible solution - there should however be nothing to stop others owning for example ibuprofenboots.com or bootsibuprofen.com or any other variation of spelling or abbreviation of the word that commercial companies might want to use.\par
\par
4)  where does all this stop?  why does the Pharmaceutical industry deserve higher protection for its generic product names?  Can we distinguish this from, say for example, a manufacturer who makes up an invented of fictitious word for an ingredient?  In the cosmetic world for example "liposomes" "glucasil" - is there a public safety issue there?  The anomaly here of course is that INNs cannot be registered as trade marks whereas ingredient names such as these examples can be (and often are) by the commercial enterprises that develop them.\par
\par
\par
apologies for ranting!\par
regards\par
Katrina\par
\par
\par
(this view are personal and not those of my employer)\par
\par
\par
\pard\li360\cf0\protect\f1\fs16 -----Original Message-----\cf1\protect0\f0\fs20\par
\cf0\protect\f1\fs16\par
\protect0\pard\protect\fi-1440\li1800\tx1440\b From:\tab\b0 John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [SMTP:john@johnberryhill.com]\par
\b Sent:\tab\b0 Monday, October 29, 2001 7:08 PM\par
\b To:\tab\b0 nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
\b Subject:\tab\b0 [nc-udrp] WIPO 2 Report - INN's\par
\protect0\pard\protect\li360\f0\fs20\par
\par
I apologize in advance if this is out of order, but I believe that\par
consideration of the WIPO 2 report is one of our agenda items.  The WIPO 2\par
report is available at:\par
\par
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/\par
\par
One of the recommendations of the WIPO 2 report is elimination from the\par
internet domain name system of International Non-proprietary Names of\par
pharmaceuticals.  These names, which include such terms as "xenon",\par
"testosterone", "methadone", "cesium chloride",  "sodium iodide", and the\par
like, are said to pose a risk to public health and safety when registered as\par
domain names.  There are 6,500 such INNs in five official languages, for a\par
total of 32,500 terms to be banned in each TLD, or 97,500 potential domain\par
names in .com, .net, and .org.\par
\par
The actual number of names to be cancelled is dramatically less than that, as\par
I have just completed a study which shows 84% of English INN's to be\par
unregistered as domain names in .com alone.\par
\par
However, due to the diversity of parties having such domain names, it may be\par
well for anyone participating in consideration of the WIPO 2 proposal to have\par
some familiarity with the domain name system abusers which are targeted by\par
the INN proposal.  A short table is included in the WIPO 2 report, but I have\par
found it to be oddly selective in the abusive registrants identified therein.\par
A more comprehensive study of INN's beginning with the letter "A" is posted\par
at\par
\par
www.johnberryhill.com/abusers.html\par
\par
and should provide the participants in this discussion with an opportunity to\par
become acquainted with the identity of these abusive domain name registrants,\par
and to resolve any conflicts of interest they may have.\par
\par
If WIPO's INN proposal is adopted, then additional penalties, such as a\par
repayment to WIPO of administrative costs, should be imposed on\par
cybersquatters who have engaged in particularly notable stockpiling of these\par
abusive registrations, such as Glaxo SmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, ICI, and\par
Pharmacia AB.\par
\par
Sincerely,\par
\par
John Berryhill\par
\par
\par
\par
}