[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RE: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
No one ignores a cease and desist letter unless their attorney finds it doesn't
merit a response.
Judith
"DEUTSCH, SARAH B." wrote:
> If the cost is cheap, that's great. What do the registrars have to
> say? The neutral warning to me is only of some value if it is
> triggered BEFORE the registration actually occurs. Even if you have
> no intent to infringe, the warning will not by itself cause people to
> give up the name. We find that in the vast majority of our cases, our
> cease and desist letters are ignored. So, I'm not overly optimistic
> that the warning by itself would change any behavior.
>
> For the cybersquatters, I agree that the warning would be ignored
> regardless.
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
> Author: "d3nnis" <SMTP:d3nnis@mciworld.com> at GCOHUB
> Date: 9/25/99 2:06 AM
>
> ----------
> > I think the warning system is certainly worth exploring as a
> > supplement -- not a replacement -- for the proactive exclusion. Has
> > anyone vetted the idea with the registrars and determined the costs
> or
> > technical feasibility of implementing such as system? I think the
> > registrars would reject the idea because it would require them to
> slow
> > down their systems by adding an additional step in the automated
> > registration process in which all domain name registration requests
> > are referred to a centralized database, which would then do a check
> > and spew back the warning.
>
> Thanks for the interesting answer.
>
> I should have been clearer in my question: my curiosity concerns how
> you feel about the effectiveness of neutral warnings.
>
> I tend to think that a neutral warning given to a registrant who has
> no intentions of infringing is likely to ensure that infringement doesn't
> occur ... and to magnify the impact of any cease and desist letter that
> might be issued by a trademark holder afterwards.
>
> For someone planning to engage in infringement, the warning would
> clearly have no impact, I realize. Your agreement/disagreement on this
> point would be interesting to hear.
>
> Parenthetically, I tend to disagree with you on the cost factor (though
> I'm no expert). A neutral warning system wouldseem by definition to
> be far cheaper andmore automated than an exclusion mechanism if one
> were forced to choose between the two, IMHO.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Dennis Schaefer
>
>
>
>
> >
> > A key question is when the warning would take place -- before or
> after
> > the applicant has submitted its application and fee. If the
> applicant
> > receives the warning after the automated process -- the warning is
> > virtually useless. After paying the bucks, few domain name holders
> > would voluntarily relinquish their domain name registrations. They
> > would still wait for the trademark owner to come after them and sue.
> >
> > The proactive exclusion helps protect their essential famous mark. I
>
> > am open to the idea of the pre-registration warning system, if
> crafted
> > properly, as a way to protect all the cybersquatting on variations of
>
> > famous marks.
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> > _________________________________
> > Subject: Re: (wg-b) RE: (wg-b) food for thought
> > Author: "d3nnis" <SMTP:d3nnis@mciworld.com> at GCOHUB
> > Date: 9/23/99 8:40 AM
> >
> >
> > Sarah --
> >
> > I would value hearing your viewpoint on the use of neutral
> > warning system as discussed a couple days ago.
> >
> > My apologies if you already have done so: mailbox problems
> > have caused me to lose mail recently.
> >
> > I understand you prefer to have an exclusion process. My questions are:
> > in the absence of an exclusion process, would you favor a warning system?
> >
> > And, with or without an exclusion process, do you feel that a warning
> system
> >
> > is practicable?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > > The latest draft of the UDRP is fatally flawed. It provides no
> real
> > > remedy for trademark owners and in my opinion will not be used
> unless
> >
> > > drastic changes are made. Contrary to the statement made below,
> the
> > > latest draft of the policy does not give the trademark owner the
> > right
> > > to challenge any registration that is confusingly similar -- the
> > > standard under US trademark law. Trademark owners must prove,
> among
> > > other hurdles, that the domain name was registered PRIMARILY for
> the
> > > purpose of disrupting business of a COMPETITOR; or that the domain
> > > name holder attempted to attract for FINANCIAL GAIN, users to its
> > site
> > > by INTENTIONALLY creating confusion by using a mark that is
> > > SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL to the trademark or service mark.
> > >
> > > As you can see, this test is totally unacceptable. If this is the
> > > policy, no one will use it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> > > _________________________________
> > > Subject: Re: (wg-b) food for thought
> > > Author: "Milton Mueller" <SMTP:mueller@syr.edu> at GCOHUB
> > > Date: 9/23/99 2:10 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > This discussion is proceeding as if the alternative to famous marks
> > > exclusions is pure court litigation. That is not correct.
> > >
> > > We cannot lose sight of the fact that a Uniform Dispute Resolution
> Policy,
> > > which ICANN is in the process of adopting, will give famous mark holders
> > the
> > >
> > > following:
> > >
> > > a) accurate and complete contact info of all registrants
> > > b) right to identify and challenge any registration that is identical to
>
> > or
> > > "confusingly" similar to their mark in a process that is much less
> > expensive
> > >
> > > and faster than the courts.
> > >
> > > I don't see what exclusion adds to that process, except additional
> > expense,
> > > bureaucracy, and opportunities for abuse of domain name holders.
> > >
> > > Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Famous marks, because they are famous, also have the wherewithall to
> > > > defend their marks. Start-up enterprises do not have this, but they
> also
> >
> > > > do not yet have a mark, or brand, to defend yet.
> > >
> > > --
> > > m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> > > syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com