[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on Guidelines for DOmain Name Registrants/Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and WIPO RFC-3
I am concerned about the WIPO RFC-3 Domain Name
Dispute proposal. As a trademark owner and domain name owner, I have
worked hard to comply with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) domain name dispute
resolution policy (as revised over the years). I obtained a trademark to
protect my domain name, and value my domain name and my trademark as
Intellectual Property.
I am concerned that this new WIPO RFC-3 proposal
will take away the national jurisdiction protection I now enjoy with my
trademark and domain name. I am also concerned about other people who have
domain names that are "common law" trademarks, but are not registered
with any country. I read Professor A. Michael Froomkin's comments of your
RFC-3 proposal and was quite alarmed at both the process and scope of WIPO's
RFC-3 proposal. Is WIPO trying to invent new international law regarding
trademarks and domain name disputes, in a world where only national trademarks
are issued? What right does WIPO have to do this? I am worried that
the scope of this domain name resolution proposal has been enlarged by WIPO to
give itself more power and influence than it should have over the Internet and
the Internet Domain Name System.
My hope is that WIPO will substantially modify
RFC-3 to eliminate the required arbitration clauses and allow disputes to be
settled in courts of law in the countries where the domain name holder and the
trademark holder actually reside. If WIPO decides not to modify the RFC-3
document adequately, then I feel ICANN should either reject this WIPO RFC-3
propsal or replace it with something similar to Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)
current domain name dispute resoltution policy.
The Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) domain name
dispute policy has worked reasonably well (as pointed out in A. Michael
Froomkin's commentary on the RFC-3 proposal) with relatively few domain name
disputes based on the number of domain names currently registered. Plus,
we all got our domain names based on NSI's policy. Why should the rules
all be changed now by an international WIPO organization. If you change
the rules, you should grandfather the existing domain name registrants to abide
ONLY under NSI's current domain name policy and NOT under a new ICANN or WIPO
domain name dispute policy. Otherwise, legal owners of domain names
could face themselves with new foreign or domestic domain name dispute
challenges that they can't afford to defend themselves against that did not
exist under current NSI domain name dispute policies.
While I admire your desire to want to change the
Internet's domain name dispute policy to make it better to protect trademark
owners' rights, I believe you have gone too far in the RFC-3 proposal to make it
too broad and far reaching, and instead of just trying to prevent
"cybersquatting" you may have introduced a new problem that could
potentially be worse, that is of people holding others existing domain names for
"ransom" with the threat of forced arbitration in a country other than
the registrant of the domain name holder. This will surely intimidate
domain name registrants into simply "handing over the domain name" to
the challenger, to avoid a potentially costly legal fight in a foreign country
or with foreign arbitrators that may not necessarily abide by laws in the domain
holder's country.
Please go back to the "Keep It Simple"
approach to domain name dispute resolution similar to the current one that
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) now employs. Every domain name registrant
should not be forced to hire a trademark attorney just to protect their domain
name from both national and international trademark challenges. Why not
just require new registrants for domain names to pay up front BEFORE the domain
name is registered to eliminate the "cybersquatting problem".
You may also have a 30 day objection period for NEW domain name registrations
where possible trademark holders can object to the new registration on trademark
grounds before a new domain name is issued or granted. This is similar to
the principal register publication method used for trademarks in the United
States currently.
I hope these comments are considered and will
help better our Internet Domain Name System and ICANN.
Respectfully,