[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


My name is Caroline G. Chicoine and I am an intellectual property
attorney with Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin in  St. Louis, MO., a
member of the Names Council of ICANN, and a member of the Internet
committee of the International Trademark Association.  To begin with, I
would like to thank the ICANN Board for inviting an intellectual
property representative to be a part of the small drafting committee
that produced the draft implementation documents for the Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy.  While I support INTA's position/comments on these
documents, please find below my comments on various provisions.
With respect to the Rules, I have the following comments:
Section 3(ix)(3) - change the term "and" to "or"  to alleviate the
loophole that someone can register a domain name in bad faith but yet
not use same and avoid the policy.

With respect to the Policy, I have the following comments:
Section 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) preamble - see above comment with respect to
Section 3(ix)(3) of the Rules.
Section 4(b)(ii) - I agree with INTA's suggestion to change the language
after "provided" to read "that the facts indicate a pattern of such
conduct,"  in order to make the determination more objective.
Section 4(c)(i) - I agree with INTA's position on this point.  The term
"demonstrable preparations to use" has no basis in trademark law, and it
is the US Patent and Trademark Office's position that mere registration
of a domain name by itself is not proper "trademark use" such that
someone can obtain exclusive rights through same.  I think it would be
dangerous to impliedly create such a new set of rights for domain name
registrations through this policy.  Moreoever, I do not see how
demonstrable preparations of use provides evidence of a domain name
registrant's rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name.  For
example, in patent infringement, one cannot avoid liability just because
you have made demonstrable preparations to use the patented invention?
Section 4(c)(ii) - I believe this provision should be stricken.
"Commonly known" to whom?, in what region? for how long? 

With respect to the Staff Report, I have the following comments:
Provider Selection - I believe option (d) provides a fair solution that
is evenly distributed between the Complainant and the domain name
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Caroline G. Chicoine


I am a shareholder in Adams Law Firm, P.A. a four person law firm
concentrating in patent, trademark and copyright law. The majority of my
clients are small to medium-sized businesses. I also served as one of
the five members on the Small Drafting Committee established under the
Board's Santiago Resolution and I assisted in the drafting of the
Registrar's Model Policy and Model Rules of Procedure submitted to the
ICANN Board in Santiago. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
the Board and ICANN's counsel for allowing me the opportunity to
participate in this endeavor. While I believe that the proposed uniform
dispute resolution policy and the rules of procedure still require some
improvement, I would like to voice my support for a uniform mechanism
designed to offer the Internet community a quick and cost effective
procedure for dealing with abusive domain name registrations