Subject: Re: funding indirect services
From: Jean Camp <Jean_Camp@harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:30:27 -0400

Here is a chance to comment on whether you might have 'personality' rights
or 'geogrqaphical rights' or 'brand rights'. A way to make the comparisons
of software prohibited under UCITA a global prohibition.

-Jean


 >>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:40:06 +0200
 >From: Slobodan Markovic <twiddle@EUnet.yu>
 >Organization: www.internodium.org.yu
 >To: ncdnhc <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
 >Subject: WIPO RFC
 >
 >[It seems to me that drafting of the domain dispute
 >policy is slowly becoming an exclusive privilege of
 >the WIPO... and that ain't good.  :-)  --sloba]
 >
 >
 >http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,474,00.html?st.ne.per.gif.a
 >
 >Agency could be coming for your domain name
 >August 11, 2000
 >
 >An international organization has proposed rules under which established
 >Web sites could lose the right to use names with common geographical
 >terms, such as "Bordeaux."
 >
 >The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the
 >United Nations, recently opened a comment period on its proposal
 >[http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc1/].
 >
 >The current draft of the proposal suggests revoking the domain names of
 >Web sites that conflict with "geographical terms," individuals' personal
 >names and "tradenames." Tradenames are broader than trademarks and do not
 >require trademark registration.
 >
 >The development is significant because the WIPO first proposed a
 >domain-name dispute resolution policy in April of last year. That
 >proposal, reduced somewhat in scope, was adopted last December by the
 >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Net's
 >coordinating body.
 >
 >WIPO subsequently became one of four arbitration bodies approved by ICANN
 >to arbitrate cases.
 >
 >The dispute-resolution policy is written with specific and targeted
 >language. It applies only when a domain name has been used in "bad faith."
 >ICANN defines bad faith narrowly to apply only to "cybersquatters"--those
 >who register multiple names merely to resell them to holders of registered
 >trademarks.
 >
 >Arbitrators in many cases, however, have greatly expanded the policy.
 >Domain names have been taken from some legitimate businesses and nonprofit
 >organizations that never attempted to resell their names.
 >
 >For example, a WIPO arbitration panel last April announced a decision to
 >take Crew.com, a generic name, from a small-business owner and transfer it
 >to J. Crew International, the sportswear manufacturer.
 >
 >Considering all cases decided between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2000, the WIPO
 >transferred domain names from defendants to plaintiffs in 84 percent of
 >all cases. A competing body, eResolution, found for the plaintiffs only 47
 >percent of the time.
 >
 >Under ICANN's rules, plaintiffs are allowed to select the arbitration body
 >they prefer. The WIPO quickly increased its market share, receiving the
 >majority of all cases by the second quarter of 2000.
 >
 >Here are the definitions of some of the factors that could cause a Web
 >site to lose its name under WIPO's proposal:
 >
 >-- Geographical terms. This includes "a geographical place of origin of a
 >product." The example the WIPO gives is "Florida oranges." But many others
 >come to mind such as "Maryland crab," "German beer" and so forth.
 >
 >-- Personal names. Alternatives include applying the new rules to "all
 >names," only the "names of famous persons," or the "names of government
 >officials or other persons in the public eye."
 >
 >Perhaps as a precursor to this new policy, a WIPO decision in June
 >transferred the domain names Montyroberts.org and Montyroberts.net to
 >horse trainer Monty Roberts. The WIPO ordered the transfers, although
 >Roberts acknowledged that he held no registered trademark on his name at
 >the time.
 >
 >-- Tradenames. This is perhaps the broadest category. Trademarks must
 >identify specific products or services. But tradenames "distinguish a
 >business," according to the WIPO proposal, "independently of the goods or
 >services that the business offers."
 >
 >In addition, "tradenames receive protection," the WIPO says, "without the
 >obligation of a filing or registration." For this reason, a company you
 >had never heard of might have a legal basis to take away your Web site's
 >address based on the concept of tradenames.
 >
 >Already, arbitration cases have ranged far beyond exact matches of
 >trademarked words. The proposed rules may create a new class of phrases
 >that can threaten the existence of established Web sites.
 >
 >At this point, the WIPO is seeking comments, which must be received by
 >Aug. 15, only on the scope of the proposal. The organization says it will
 >publish a new draft Sept. 8, with comments on that document open until
 >Nov. 17.
 >
 >

AND

 >Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:55:18 EDT
 >Subject: Comments against scope of WIPO RFC badly needed!
 >To: ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org
 >From: KathrynKL@aol.com
 >
 >As you may know, I have been involved in fighting against WIPO for some time.
 >WIPO has ** always ** wanted a much broader scope to the UDRP -- and much
 >greater trademark and trademark-type protections.
 >
 >The new Request for Comment -- due August 15 -- asks for input on whether the
 >UDRP should be expanded to include geographical terms, personal names, and
 >tradenames.  The answer should be an ** unqualified no **.  Each of these
 >expansions a) goes beyond any treaty that has been negotiated and essentially
 >amounts to the creation of new international law by WIPO without a treaty,
 >and b) has the tremendous potential to hurt noncommercial speech and activity
 >on the Internet.
 >
 >I can offer "New York" pizza in Cairo (and in my domain name) without being
 >any type of legal violation.  I can be named "Maggie" and want a domain name
 >and website without being the former prime minister of England. Tradenames
 >are not generally registered, difficult to know, and could be common,
 >ordinary words such as UNO, APPLE, or COOL.  The potential for infringements
 >of the rights of noncommercial speakers and individuals is tremendous if the
 >UDRP is expanded into these areas.  These cases belong in courts and before
 >treaty negotiators -- this is far beyond any possible mandate for WIPO and
 >the UDRP.l
 >
 >If you and/or your organization can submit brief comments to WIPO by Aug. 15
 >telling them that the proposed new scope of the UDRP is wrong and violates
 >the original understanding of the UDRP as a very narrow scope  -- it would
 >certainly help.
 >
 >Apologies for my infrequency postings.  Please feel free to write to me
 >privately on this matter if I can help.;
 >regards,
 >kathy kleiman
 >
 ><<
 > -- Geographical terms. This includes "a geographical place of origin of a
 > product." The example the WIPO gives is "Florida oranges." But many others
 > come to mind such as "Maryland crab," "German beer" and so forth.
 >
 > -- Personal names. Alternatives include applying the new rules to "all
 > names," only the "names of famous persons," or the "names of government
 > officials or other persons in the public eye."
 >
 > -- Tradenames. This is perhaps the broadest category. Trademarks must
 > identify specific products or services. But tradenames "distinguish a
 > business," according to the WIPO proposal, "independently of the goods or
 > services that the business offers."
 >  >>