RE: [wg-review] Trademarks and UDRP

[Phil King <yofelipe@excite.com>]

snip**********
(Kent)
|>Three points: 
|> 
|>1) They don't dominate.  While big IP intersets have been very 
|>influential, in fact the Internet is swamping them, and they 
|>are running scared.  DN issues are only a small part of the problem for
them. 
|>Moreover, TM disputes happen only in a very tiny fraction of domain name 
|>registrations, and a large percentage of those are clearly 
|>cybersquatters.   

(Daryl)
I don't have the actual statistics but from a quick glance at the records
and from reading I would not accept the percentage as being small without
some facts to support that claim.  If you have the actual statistics
available I would be very interested in seeing them. 

The fact they are running scared is or should not be of concern with regards
to DNS issues.  I also suspect that it is not actual trademark damages that
is causing them the concern.  I suspect they see the Internet as being a
huge potential customer base and they are more concerned with capturing the
largest market shares they can.     

---------

(Phil)
Yes, the IP/TM people are running scared of being swamped by the internet. 
The fact is that that market is outrunning their ability to reach it, they
are doing all they can to slow down what they can't keep up with.  Some,
can't/don't want to, address the nessecity to find new ways to incorporate
the new business model.  An example is RIAA's fight with Napster's illegal
trading copywrited property, using wrong issues, trying to limit market
access to property as they (RIAA) cannot adapt fast enough to the new
technology.  This is misuse of IP/TM, though in the right place, the courts.

snip***********

(Daryl)
This is basically what I am getting at.  Why is the DNS being used to expand
rights to particular groups that they do not already have within existing
authoritive structures? 

------------

(Phil)
Because that is the only way they have to do it (protect their investment). 
It may not be right, but it is (until proven otherwise) legal.  I feel it is
not a warranted expansion.  This expansion should be within treaty or other
vehicle between countries and/or international entities (binding the
signatories/participants).  The way it is being done currently undermines
the autonomy of the countries being affected through their citizens losing
domains without consideration of their laws.  We (USA) are still trying to
get the rest of the world to bow to US law and practice, and doing it
unilateraly by UDRP fiat.  Some form of Universal Dispute Resolution needs
to be, but it must be such that all affected parties have a voice in it's
policies and practice, and that is still in the future (I hope).


(more Phil)

That the current system is better than it was is good, we must not loose
sight of the fact that it leaves much to be desired, and must move rapidly
on to make it less of an 'out of legal' expansion and look to ways to
properly protect both non-damaging uses of TM'd terms as well as fairly deal
with cybersquatters and actual damaging uses of TM'd titles/names.  It looks
like ICANN does not have the credibility or authority to do this at this
time, not sure who can or should, but it needs to be addressed sooner rather
than later.


Yo, Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte America
(The Richest Hill On Earth)





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/


--
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