Re: [wg-review] Trademarks and UDRP

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I certainly concur with Mr. Morfin on this issue.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Kent,
> I followed your reasoning about TMs/DNs.

Your conclusion is right: conflicts are inevitable. But your premises
are not. The conflicts are not among TM/DN owners but against the
IANA's policy (that ICANN worsened). The law (ICANN bylaws) is not
respected (to treat everyone equal / ICANN not a registry) which
would make these types of conflicts disapear.

What you actually defend is a law which accepts the dirrespect
of the law. So, if I certainly understand your rationale, I would
suggest you to wander how such a law might really protect you,
either and both as a user or as a TM owner.

Jefsey
 

If my stockholders of my fictitious company found out that I (as a fictitious
lawyer) on behalf of my company signed an agreement that said I would agree
and abide by the decisions of wipo regarding our domain names and trademarks
they would fire me. But yet that is what I must do in order to register
my domain name in dotcom.

Now the only way they would not fire me is if I had no choice and could wink at them and say don't worry we control wipo. Taken from that angle the whole UDRP becomes quite curious, especially when arguing with someone from Mr. Crispin's position.  If I were in Mr. Crispin's position I certainly would do all I could to keep the UDRP exactly the way it is. And believe me I certainly respect his position, but the ICW and the stockholders are not in his position.

The trademark people have no business in ICANN.  If ICANN were the government their (the TM) involvement would be considered prior restraint on speech and very clearly illegal. You don't pre regulate speech in order to protect big business, it is unconscionable.

When I get to run a ccTLD I certainly will advise the country not to allow this type of interference.

Sincerely,