INTA's remarks are, of course, right on target. What baffles me is why they
support WIPO's attempt to make ALL of the world's registries into dispute
prevention and resolution services that also offer trademark holders extra-legal
rights over domain names. If they had maintained the policy stated below
consistently, we would all have a lot more respect for them.
--MM
Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> There is an association of trademark owners and lawyers, and it is called
> the International Trademark Association (INTA). INTA said this:
>
> After significant study and consideration, INTA concluded that Network
> Solution's (NSI) domain name dispute
> resolution policy is unworkable and cannot be "fixed," because neither
> NSI, nor any other future registrar or
> network information center should be a tribunal for trademark dispute
> resolution or be expected to be a specialist
> in trademark matters. (Responses of the International Trademark
> Association to U.S. Government's Request for
> Comment on Internet Domain Name System.)
>
> INTA also said this:
>
> ... this paper proposes that the current NSI Dispute Policy be
> recognized as a failure and eliminated, that domain
> name disputes be left to the courts, [and] that [NSI] not participate
> in the resolution of domain name disputes ...
>
> Putting an active domain name on hold is effectively a form of
> injunctive relief, granted by [NSI] after the registrant
> has invested in the challenged domain name. Thus, in some
> circumstances, the dispute policy will allow certain
> trademark owners to trump the legitimate rights of other trademark
> owners and obtain the equivalent of injunctive
> relief, without meeting the stringent standards for such relief
> required by law. This is unfair.
>
> The [NSI domain name trademark] policy can result in injustice and it
> can get [NSI] dragged into court (often to
> prevent just such an injustice) because [NSI] is playing a judicial
> role that it is neither authorized nor competent to
> play.
