RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 17:14 24-03-2000 -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
>I'm sorry, but we've seen that WIPO cannot use discretion.  Their tortured 
>"logic" in the UDRP proves that they will go where the money is, on behalf 
>of trademark owners, whose property they are mandated by charter to 
>protect (specifically leaving out domain name holders as equal 
>intellectual property interests.  I spoke with them regarding this 
>multiple times over several years, and still there is no change).

Dear Mikki:  I hope you are wrong about WIPO.  In the past, the IP 
community has been concerned that WIPO is too much concerned about the Less 
Developed Countries (LDCs).

Let me paste in something from my prior posting:

 From a substantive point of view, I believe we must continue to remind 
ourselves (and those who read our reports and postings) that the 
fundamental purpose of Trademark laws is to protect the 
consumer.  Stressing the rights of holders of famous trademarks puts the 
cart before the horse.

OTOH, the holder of trademarks has the responsibility to police the use of 
its marks *specifically to protect the potential consumer*.

A good role for WIPO would be to protect the consumer by helping control 
the miss use of marks.


>I also do not feel that registrars adequately protect the rights of users 
>to free speech, small business, etc.  This is not an appropriate solution 
>and an inappropriate conflict of interest.

I hope you're wrong about registrars.  We are a registrar and I don't see 
that we can our would do anything to interfere with the rights of free speech.

Regards, BobC