At 08:38 AM 2/17/99 -0800, you wrote:
>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.
As I've suggested before, that WIPO means "World Intellectual
Property Organization" does not by itself guarantee that WIPO
has any more trademark law expertise than does NSI. WIPO is
an administrative facilitator with regard to the nuts and bolts of
intellectual property matters; it may be a resource on intellectual
law sources, but that does not make it an expert in applying, or
especially adjudicating, intellectual property issues. Consequently,
I would await proof of the assertion that "WIPO's guidelines will
closely follow actual TM law."
Bill Lovell
