[wg-review] Trademarks and UDRP

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Thanks, Joanna.

I do think that a more empirical study would be needed. Here's why.  I went
to the WIPO site and downloaded (I must have been NUTS that day!) the
listing of all the cases filed and their status. I went through the stack of
paper (it looked like close to a ream of paper, but probably wasn't), I
found significant numbers of obvious infringements and registrations of
names that were confusingly similar.  My own company had used it about 19
times (I may have the exact number wrong). From conversations with other
corporations, it is likely that they would have gone to court if the UDRP
didn't exist.

As I've said, no court always renders "correct" opinions, either. Appeals
are taken. And sometimes an outcome may be wrong, or blatantly unfair, and
still stand. No system is perfect. 

Do you have specific suggestions for what could go into an evaluation of the
UDRP process?  Should there always be a requirement of more than one
panelist? Should the qualifications of the panelists (as a group) not
individually per case, be posted somewhere on a web site?
Should there be an appeals process that is built in? What would it look
like? What would it cost to operate? Should WIPO publish a report of
numbers, characteristics of cases, outcomes, number of panelists chosen by
aggregate, relationship of result to number of panelists, etc.

I'm very interested in what an evaluation would consist of...



Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 3:18 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Kent Crispin'; review
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Trademarks and UDRP


Marilyn,
I have a problem with one statement that you wrote, which was "  I also
don't see any empirical study which
supports the allegation that the UDRP is flawed.  I understand that there is
legitimate concern and questions about specific outcomes of individual
cases."

Whether or not an empirical study exists is unrelated to whether or not
flaws exist. In evidence, we have specific outcomes of individual cases, so
it would not be correct to say that just because there was no study, flaws
do not exist and equally, just because a few cases show inconsistent
results, the system is not flawed. On the contrary, the evidence points to
the system being flawed. However, I would agree with you that there is no
evidence that the flaws cannot be remedied.

Regards,
Joanna



--
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
--
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