On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:57:58 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 12:42 AM 6/26/99 +0000, Kerry Miller wrote:
>>
>>Diane,
>>> I think it would be lovely and convenient for everyone, not just
>>> the business interests, if there were UDR for all TLDs.
>>
>>I agree, if there *already were UDR it would be marvelous
>
>I'm not against a UDR, but I'm against the wipo udr.
>
>What's wrong with a registry saying "bring us a court order" ?
>
>(And is there anything better ?)
There are "jurisdictional" problems. This ruling in California for
instance could have an effect on this. If the registry is located in
California for instance, but I'm not, does that give California
jurisdiction over my action? This recent ruling seems to indicate
not.
Personally I see this as a registry issue. And I think if the
registry decides to implement some kind of UDR, then it should
probably foot the bill for it also, so that it doesn't become an issue
of "default" when the domain name holder can't afford the cost of
challenging the case.
My real concern with UDR, is the standard of proof and the shifting of
burden. As it stands now, the trademark holder has a burden of proof
and of cost of enforcing their mark. Under NO circumstance should
this change to a case of the domain name holder having to file a case
in court to prove they are not infringing.
Unfortunately this is what I see the trademark interests pushing for.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
