On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 10:19:22AM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
> >>What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that?
> >
> >Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars.
>
> Which is exactly why pseudo.org may lose their domain name. The
> non-infringing non-commercial domain name holder can't afford tens of
> thousands of dollars. The reverse domain name hijackers have very little
> downside. All they need do is claim infringement (even though there is NO
> analysis in the US that supports the claim, and they know it) and he domain
> name holder's only recourse is to spend tens of thousands in legal fees
> that generally aren't shifted back to the reverse hijacker in court.
>
> WIPO's policy wouldn't be any better. And people wonder why individuals
> and small business domain name holders need representation.
Many people think that WIPO's policy would be vastly better, for at
least two reasons: 1) it would be much cheaper and simpler than the
scenario above; and 2) unlike NSI, WIPO's guidelines will closely
follow actual TM Law.
In other words, clear cases of non-infringement will be settled very
quickly in the domain holders favor, and probably at the expense of
the complaining party.
["It is, therefore, proposed that the third party complainant should
be required to pay the initial administration fee, as well as the
full advance payment of the fees of the decision-maker and any
anticipated expenses. However, as recommended above, the
decision-maker would have discretion, in the determination, to decide
on the allocation of these costs of the procedure among the parties
in the light of all the circumstances of the dispute and the
result."]
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
