RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/19/01 10:39:33 PM, "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com> wrote:
>Sotiris,
>I agree with you, but it has been said before, which court? The plaintiff
>and defendant may each have trademarks on different continents to the 
same
>name and who would agree the impartiality of the opponents jurisdiction? 

Which is why it is not a good idea to apply *anybody's* trademark law to the 
Internet.  If Big Business Interests wish to interpret the Internet as a Business 
Opportunity, let them pay to do so, just like the rest of us.  Why do the rules 
get bent to accomodate some interests while burying others?  

e.g. UDRP = Madonna (popstar millionaire) vs. Madonna.com (rosaries and 
Bibles: small time operation).  If Madonna wished to control such an 
admittedly valuable name (she chose to use it herself!), she could have 
afforded an offer to buy the name as any self-respecting person/organization 
with dignity and integrity would do (she probably spends more on underwear 
in a year than she could have gotten the domain for anyway).  Instead, she 
got to take this *valuable* name away from the original registrant who was 
*legitimately* there before her (or anybody else for that matter) and did 
nothing wrong but spend his hard-earned money where he chose.  One has 
to wonder where madonna's claim would have been had the catholic 
Church beaten everyone to the name?

Madonna *won* Madonna.com in a UDRP!  Madonna: which very name 
whose fame this `popstar' explicitly exploited *for* its fame, but in her own 
way.  I've no truck with a person's creativity, only when it starts to impose 
itself over the legitimate and fair rights of others.   

>I believe the Hague was suggested as the only truly international court, but 
>I don't understand why any WIPO impartiality cannot be remedied. What is 
the
>cause of the problems exactly?

WIPO is not an impartial organization and therefore must not have the sort of 
standing it now enjoys in relation to the Internet.  In the IP field, lawyers 
represent  Business interests, not their own.  Therefore, a WIPO 
constituency is a double-up for Business.  WIPO's gotta go.

>By the way, does this fit into 6.procedures or is it off-topic?

I think it's very much a topic of it's own.  A lot of the other issues probably `fit' 
within this one itself.



Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html