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

["Maxim Waldbaum" <mwaldbaum@salans.com>]

amen! i think katrina has it right.as for j. scott's comments on question 4 the first suggestion is not helpful as any additional information on evidence must be submitted by the parties.we,as arbitrators,may be curious about filling in voids on proofs but that will lead to a more complicated and expensive proceeding.leave it to the parties and the wisdom of the arbitrator if he feels he needs additional information. j. scott's second suggestion is ok.mac

> "Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com" 10/30/01 05:05AM >>>

Below are my thoughts on the INN debate

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.

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 pharmaceutical 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.

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.

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.

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.


apologies for ranting!
regards
Katrina


(this view are personal and not those of my employer)


-----Original Message-----

From:	John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. [SMTP:john@johnberryhill.com] 
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 7:08 PM
To:	nc-udrp@dnso.org 
Subject:	[nc-udrp] WIPO 2 Report - INN's


I apologize in advance if this is out of order, but I believe that
consideration of the WIPO 2 report is one of our agenda items.  The WIPO 2
report is available at:

http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/ 

One of the recommendations of the WIPO 2 report is elimination from the
internet domain name system of International Non-proprietary Names of
pharmaceuticals.  These names, which include such terms as "xenon",
"testosterone", "methadone", "cesium chloride",  "sodium iodide", and the
like, are said to pose a risk to public health and safety when registered
as
domain names.  There are 6,500 such INNs in five official languages, for a
total of 32,500 terms to be banned in each TLD, or 97,500 potential domain
names in .com, .net, and .org.

The actual number of names to be cancelled is dramatically less than that,
as
I have just completed a study which shows 84% of English INN's to be
unregistered as domain names in .com alone.

However, due to the diversity of parties having such domain names, it may
be
well for anyone participating in consideration of the WIPO 2 proposal to
have
some familiarity with the domain name system abusers which are targeted by
the INN proposal.  A short table is included in the WIPO 2 report, but I
have
found it to be oddly selective in the abusive registrants identified
therein.
A more comprehensive study of INN's beginning with the letter "A" is posted
at

www.johnberryhill.com/abusers.html 

and should provide the participants in this discussion with an opportunity
to
become acquainted with the identity of these abusive domain name
registrants,
and to resolve any conflicts of interest they may have.

If WIPO's INN proposal is adopted, then additional penalties, such as a
repayment to WIPO of administrative costs, should be imposed on
cybersquatters who have engaged in particularly notable stockpiling of
these
abusive registrations, such as Glaxo SmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, ICI,
and
Pharmacia AB.

Sincerely,

John Berryhill



_________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone (212-632-5500)
and delete and destroy all copies of the material, including all
copies stored in the recipient's computer, printed or saved to disk.