ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Her Majesty the Queen: Royal Hijacker of Domains
    posted by tbyfield on Friday December 20 2002, @11:50AM

    Anonymous writes "A unanimous WIPO panel not only refused to give newzealand.com to "HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, in right of her Government in New Zealand, as Trustee for the Citizens, Organizations and State of New Zealand," but even declared her a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker."



    Of course, it wasn't really the poor Queen herself who initiated the complaint but an errant knave known as "the Honourable Jim Sutton, the Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade."

    Lead panelist Tony Willoughby noted that the NZ government itself had not supported protection of geographical indicators in the second WIPO proceeding, and wrote, "the Panel is unanimous in its view that when the Complaint was launched, those responsible for the Complaint, the New Zealand Government, were well aware that a claim to trademark and service mark rights in respect of NEW ZEALAND was baseless. Moreover, that document makes it clear that the New Zealand Government regards the protection of country names (qua country names) as being outside the scope of the Policy..."

    The decision concludes, "In the circumstances, the Panel has no hesitation in branding this misconceived Complaint as an abuse of the Policy, which has put the Respondent to needless expense."

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • declared her a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Her Majesty the Queen: Royal Hijacker of Domains | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 50 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Books about country owned by government?
    by WIPOorgUK on Sunday December 22 2002, @11:16PM (#10648)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Domain names are NOT just for trademarks and countries - ask DNS creator Paul Mockapetris - normal people can use them also.

    The authorities hide solution to these problems, to enable the domains to be easily taken from owner.

    People choose domain names for many reasons.

    The domain name can be used to communicate title, or tell of subject, or give author.

    The domain name as title may be picked because it sounds good or is easy to remember.

    The domain name as subject would tell readers what they will find within.

    The authorities would have you believe that it is always the author.

    Countries and places give same false argument.

    If you wrote a book entitled 'South Africa', do the rights to this book belong to that countries government?

    As you know, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization deal with the conflict between domain names and trademarks.

    Most businesses share the same words - either with or without registering trademark. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.

    UN WIPO would not confirm or deny the simple solution when it was pointed out to them.

    You might ask, "Why not - surely they want it?"

    Trademark and Competition Law is being violated by big business - so money and power perhaps.

    Guess where UN WIPO get most their money?

    There is no doubt in my mind - the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and United States Department of Commerce are corrupt.

    Please visit WIPO.org.uk - no connection with corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
    Re: Congratulations on good comments and ignore th
    by rachelmacgregor on Monday December 23 2002, @01:14PM (#10671)
    User #3082 Info
    You have presented a fairly-reasoned argument and I agree with principles you put forward. If the word "apple" is a Trademark 35 times over in 35 different countries, then what the fuck gives ONE of those trademark holders the right to hi-jack the domain? And if someone else wants to write a website about eating apples, using the word "apple" in the domain name to draw attention logically to their subject, why the hell shouldn't they have the freedom to use their own language.

    All these problems might be eased if, as you have proposed previously Gerry, a TLD specifically for Trademarks (like .REG) was introduced. Then people would know that that was where you went for Trademarked/official websites. For the rest of the Internet, it should be open to all (providing they do not use names in bad faith) and names should NOT be reserved for Big Business.

    Now... some people may have intelligent alternative proposals or may not fully agree with yours...

    But how fucking disappointing that what we see in this thread is people not able to argue with you logically about your points and using the tactics of the gutter instead. Alas! They marginalise themselves! A lot of intelligent people read the posts on this valuable website, and the abuse directed against your points just about speaks for itself.

    I also object to the racism, that because you are a Brit, that in some way makes you more of a kook.

    Not a kook at all... good points... and on this website you have the freedom to express them. Of course, REAL kooks have the freedom to express themselves as well, but look at the actual content and decide for yourself who at least deserves a respectful and thoughtful response.

    ICANNwatch deserves thoughtful input like yours. It is only demeaned by brainless abuse with zero content and racist slurs.

    Rachel Macgregor
    Thank you Rachel
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @02:46PM (#10677)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    > why the hell shouldn't they have the freedom to use their own language.

    Exactly - it is our language - what blinking right have WIPO and ICANN to stop us using it?

    They piss on the First Amendment with UDRP and Sunrise.

    Vint Cerf says, "The Internet is for Everyone" -twelve times on http://www.isoc.lu/everyone.html

    It seems clear he no longer feels that way - since working for WorldCom I believe he has sold out. He and ICANN gave the DNS to the corporations.

    Given the evidence - I believe they are all a bunch of crooks.
    You give disinformation and lies
    by WIPOorgUK on Tuesday December 24 2002, @04:39AM (#10684)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    > TM owners do not want .reg just like they don't want any more new TLDs (unless they are restricted like .museum and .aero).

    Why should trademark holders have to buy and protect domains in every TLD?

    They do not own the trademark in EVERY CLASSIFICATION and EVERY COUNTRY - do they?

    > Why spend more money registering domains in .reg when people really don't want to register names in .biz, .info, .us, etc.

    Read feeble excuses link on my website - COST TO TRADEMARK:

    It is minimal, a few dollars, they used to give domains away. The reason why they cost even as much as they do, is profit margin. Why not one off payment, like driving licence? Or, as trademarks are rarely transferred, pay on change of owner.

    > The UDRP was designed to deal with cases of true cybersquatting. Unfortunately, there have been a few complainants who have screwed up the process by reaching too far - crew.com, heel.com, barcelona.com, plus a few others. But on the whole, the policy works well.

    Bull* - most cases do not reach this far - for one reason only - because the domain owner has given it up - being frightened off by lawyers and threats of 100,000 dollar fines.

    > Gerry's plan just isn't worth it. And it doesn't solve the problem, it just adds another tld that people have to fight over.

    Bull* - there is no need to fight - trademark conflict is not allowed - else trademark is invalid.

    It doe solve problem - because it uniquely identifies the trademark holder - one does not have priority over another - trademarks are unable to prevent small business from using their name.

    *************************
    Why do you try so hard to divert attention away from the facts?
    *************************

    Are you a corrupt lawyer - perverting Trademark and Competition Law on the Internet - to make loads of money from these problems?

    Just try to deny this - go on I dare you:

    Fact: In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify the domain as trademark.

    Given virtually all words are registered trademarks many times over - how else are people to know?
    Re: Congratulations on good comments and ignore th
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday December 24 2002, @04:56AM (#10686)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Since when should "what TM owners want" automatically be law or policy? They're just one of many different groups with an interest of some sort in domain name policy; their word should be listened to along with all the others, but shouldn't automatically win every time. "You can't always get what you want."
    Re: Congratulations on good comments and ignore th
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday December 24 2002, @07:55AM (#10691)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    So, then, the question comes down to whether it's more important to stop the cybersquatters or to avoid harming innocent parties whose claims happen to conflict.

    Just like with the old saw, "It's better for 10 criminals to go free than for one innocent person to go to jail," there's a legitimate argument to say "It's better to let 10 cybersquatters stay on the net than to take away 1 legitimately-used domain name."

    To me, cybersquatters are a silly annoyance; I wish they'd go away, but am afraid of the baby getting tossed out with the bathwater when a system is set up to "catch" them.
    legitimate rights & cowardice of critics
    by WIPOorgUK on Tuesday December 24 2002, @02:08PM (#10696)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Everybody has legitimate rights to use ANY words for ANY legal purpose they wish - true or false?

    Going further - into specifics:

    You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.

    UDRP was introduced on the back of a LIE - that trademarks could not be uniquely identified on the Internet.

    apple.computer.us.reg
    apple.record.uk.reg

    With solution in place - which one would you think is the Apple Computer trademark?

    Come on - tell us why did UN WIPO tell this LIE?

    You are not a coward are you?

    Or do you deny the evidence in front of your face.
    You are wrong
    by WIPOorgUK on Wednesday December 25 2002, @10:38AM (#10711)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    It demonstrably will work.

    It has nothing to do with anybody buying into this - but about the cowardice and unlawfulness of authorities.

    These chickens refuse to answer simple questions.

    Bill Clinton recently visited the UK. He said in speech at the Labour party conference in Blackpool: "And we know we are not always right, even though everybody hates to admit that, we are not. So we have to operate on the basis of evidence, and be open to argument. Their politics is based on ideology and power, and they don't like evidence and argument very much. ...But at some point you've to look at the evidence."

    Note Clinton did not admit that our politics, most especially the United States, is also based on ideology and power.

    When saying, "And we know we are not always right, even though everybody hates to admit that, WE ARE NOT" he is telling a blatent lie or has been misled.

    I have contacted US, UK and UN authorities, including the US Department of Commerce - they ALL hate to admit they are wrong.

    To say "we have to operate on the basis of evidence, and be open to argument" he is telling a blatent lie or has been misled.

    They refuse to answer simple questions - totally ignoring evidence of fact and reasoned argument - they cannot be open and truthful.

    *****************

    I asked you simple question:

    UDRP was introduced on the back of a LIE - that trademarks could not be uniquely identified on the Internet.

    apple.computer.us.reg
    apple.record.uk.reg

    With solution in place - which one would you think is the Apple Computer trademark?

    Come on - tell us why did UN WIPO tell this LIE?

    You are not a coward are you?

    *****************

    I ask them and you the same basic simple question.

    Quote: "at some point you've to look at the evidence".

    I believe the evidence proves the authorities and yourself to be gutless cowards.
    Gerry Anderson's point is hard to refute...
    by rachelmacgregor on Wednesday December 25 2002, @01:48PM (#10712)
    User #3082 Info
    I say Gerry Anderson has a valid point which is hard to refute...

    ... scores if not hundreds of people all over the world hold trademarks with the word "apple" selling all manner of different things...

    ... millions of people speak the English language and have a native-born right to use their own language, including the word "apple" and can apply for the domain "apple" without any ill-intent whatsoever...

    ... so what gives ONE trademark holder the right to hijack the word in preference to anyone else... does the whole internet put one specific trademark holder first... why should it?...

    ...so Gerry suggests, use the TLD and subdomain to define precisely what a company wants identifying as its own domain space. To use his example:
    apple.computer.us.reg
    apple.record.uk.reg....

    ...this gives trademark holders the identifier they need, to identify and differentiate between their product and someone else's...

    ... it leaves the generic words free on a fair basis for anyone who speaks English to use in their domain name...

    ...the dot.reg TLD would accomplish this... this whole debate shows up the way ICANN has given preference to the Trademark lobby at the expense of ordinary people...

    ... so much for the fair distribution of the namespace which ICANN was set up to protect and guarantee...

    ... these fuckers are a laughingstock and they've lost credibility all round the globe - in the process they've cast the United States government in a bad light, and made people realise that the Internet is being run for the sake of Big Business and American vested interests...

    ... how long before other countries start setting up their own roots and by-passing these morons?...

    ... Gerry Anderson is RIGHT to criticise the favoured status given to the Trademark lobby... the Internet does not exist for their sake... it belongs for everyone, big and small, so what the hell gives the right to these people to come barging in and saying, "Sorry, this part of the DNS is ours and ours alone"?...

    ... let alone the discrepancy that there are often scores of companies around the world who use the same generic word as their trademark... a clear .reg name with defining subdomain would be far clearer...

    ... Domain names are NOT trademarks... they are telephone numbers leading to specific information on specific web pages... if Apple Computers have a problem with illegal and false material on a website, they should pursue their grievance through the courts like anyone else... they should NOT claim a right to a generic name as if a domain name was a Trademark which belonged to them and them alone!...

    ...Domains are sequences of characters, that's all... like telephone numbers are sequences of numbers... they are NOT trademarks... and ICANN's interference in this area, and annexing of swathes of generic words in our language to the trademark lobby is an interference far, far in excess of their narrow technical remit...

    ... in constitutional terms, it might be argued that their interference is an infringement on other people's liberties... it was NOT what ICANN was originally set up to do...

    ...Gerry Anderson is absolutely right to question this and come up with a workable proposal...

    ...meanwhile, get your fucking hands off our language, and make the DNS available to all on a fair and equal basis!

    ... ICANN - scrap your over-reaching Agreements and Contracts, scrap Sunrise policies which effectively turn domain names into Trademarks, and piss off!

    Rachel
    Anonymous Coward speaks again
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @03:32AM (#10653)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    If same person - I remember your arguments do not have an ounce intelligence to them.

    At least use a handle so that I can see.

    Or are you a limp wristed coward?
    Re: Oh shut up
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday December 23 2002, @05:10AM (#10656)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    His argument actually makes a lot of sense, though his habit of posting the same canned spiel verbatim over and over in every forum does make him look like a bit of a NetKook [tm].
    Facts
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @06:46AM (#10659)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    You have no reasoned argument to counter logically derived facts - have you?

    I will not get into flame war with you - I refuse to fight with the intellectually challenged.

    Anyhow, the reader will decide who is kook.

    If Dan (dtobias) has any suggestion on how to present basic facts - without it sounding like verbatim canned spiel - I would be grateful.

    There is very little you can do to dress up facts.
    Re: Facts
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday December 23 2002, @11:44AM (#10667)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    What exactly is "dumb" about his ideas? Consider his ideas themselves, not his (somewhat monotonous) manner of presenting them. What's the flaw in them?
    Indisputably self-evident
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @02:26PM (#10676)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Dan - sorry to bore you ;-)

    Given a registered trademark is:

    1) - identified by a mark
    2) - for SPECIFIC goods or service
    3) - for SPECIFIC country

    Even the slowcoach UK Patent Office admitted they knew of replacement for mark on the Internet.

    They said, "a TLD '.reg' has been well understood by the Patent Office for several years"

    Is it not FACT that the solution was completely obvious?
    Cave of Lies
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @01:56PM (#10674)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    You know I have not told any lies - I challenge you to point one out on my website.

    Nor did I retreat from you - as the reader can see in previous posts below.

    Indeed - I proved you misrepresent me and told lies yourself.

    *************************
    Why do you try so hard to divert attention away from the facts?
    *************************

    Are you a corrupt lawyer - perverting Trademark and Competition Law on the Internet - to make loads of money from these problems?

    Just try to deny this - go on I dare you:

    Fact: In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify the domain as trademark.

    Given virtually all words are registered trademarks many times over - how else are people to know?

    It is yourself, US DoC, ICANN and UN WIPO that live in the 'Cave of Lies'.

    Last 10 comments by WIPOorgUK:
  • Facts
  • Anonymous Coward speaks again
  • Books about country owned by government?
  • Nissan Motors Unlawfully Overreach Trademark
  • Credibility and Bad Faith
  • P.P.S.
  • Canned Spiel
  • You misrepresent me - you LIE
  • Authorities bastardized words for one use
  • Not you again
  • ICANN was not set up to turn Domain names into Tra
    by rachelmacgregor on Wednesday December 25 2002, @01:50PM (#10713)
    User #3082 Info
    I say Gerry Anderson has a valid point which is hard to refute...

    ... scores if not hundreds of people all over the world hold trademarks with the word "apple" selling all manner of different things...

    ... millions of people speak the English language and have a native-born right to use their own language, including the word "apple" and can apply for the domain "apple" without any ill-intent whatsoever...

    ... so what gives ONE trademark holder the right to hijack the word in preference to anyone else... does the whole internet put one specific trademark holder first... why should it?...

    ...so Gerry suggests, use the TLD and subdomain to define precisely what a company wants identifying as its own domain space. To use his example:
    apple.computer.us.reg
    apple.record.uk.reg....

    ...this gives trademark holders the identifier they need, to identify and differentiate between their product and someone else's...

    ... it leaves the generic words free on a fair basis for anyone who speaks English to use in their domain name...

    ...the dot.reg TLD would accomplish this... this whole debate shows up the way ICANN has given preference to the Trademark lobby at the expense of ordinary people...

    ... so much for the fair distribution of the namespace which ICANN was set up to protect and guarantee...

    ... these fuckers are a laughingstock and they've lost credibility all round the globe - in the process they've cast the United States government in a bad light, and made people realise that the Internet is being run for the sake of Big Business and American vested interests...

    ... how long before other countries start setting up their own roots and by-passing these morons?...

    ... Gerry Anderson is RIGHT to criticise the favoured status given to the Trademark lobby... the Internet does not exist for their sake... it belongs for everyone, big and small, so what the hell gives the right to these people to come barging in and saying, "Sorry, this part of the DNS is ours and ours alone"?...

    ... let alone the discrepancy that there are often scores of companies around the world who use the same generic word as their trademark... a clear .reg name with defining subdomain would be far clearer...

    ... Domain names are NOT trademarks... they are telephone numbers leading to specific information on specific web pages... if Apple Computers have a problem with illegal and false material on a website, they should pursue their grievance through the courts like anyone else... they should NOT claim a right to a generic name as if a domain name was a Trademark which belonged to them and them alone!...

    ...Domains are sequences of characters, that's all... like telephone numbers are sequences of numbers... they are NOT trademarks... and ICANN's interference in this area, and annexing of swathes of generic words in our language to the trademark lobby is an interference far, far in excess of their narrow technical remit...

    ... in constitutional terms, it might be argued that their interference is an infringement on other people's liberties... it was NOT what ICANN was originally set up to do...

    ...Gerry Anderson is absolutely right to question this and come up with a workable proposal...

    ...meanwhile, get your fucking hands off our language, and make the DNS available to all on a fair and equal basis!

    ... ICANN - scrap your over-reaching Agreements and Contracts, scrap Sunrise policies which effectively turn domain names into Trademarks, and piss off!

    Rachel
    No restrictions on trademark business
    by WIPOorgUK on Wednesday December 25 2002, @11:46PM (#10718)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Thank you again Rachel.

    What many people fail to realise is that there is no restrictions on trademark business.

    Apple Computers can still use apple.com - just redirected to the identifier - apple.computer.us.reg !

    It gives additional directory function when entered directly.

    This is just to give absolutely certainty as to the trademark owner.

    This 'consumer confusion' is just a bull* excuse used in UDRP to take domain from lawful owner.

    Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it.

    I have no doubt that Apple Computers would like apple.[everything] in every TLD.

    Caterpillar tractors have even claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet - even though hundreds of trademarks use the word 'cat' - in US alone.

    Not one person has ever gave reasoned argument as to why authorities should be aiding and abetting corporations to violate Trademark and Competition Law.
    P.S. It is Garry Anderson :-)
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday December 26 2002, @12:18AM (#10719)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    To quote a disgraced fallen god, "The Internet IS for everyone - but it won't be unless WE make it so."

    http://www.isoc.lu/everyone.html

    Rachel - this could be a pivotal time in history - and not just for the Internet.

    People should not let governments get away with telling HALF-TRUTHS to decieve them.

    I believe SPIN is the greatest danger to democracy.

    How can people make informed opinion, if they are misled and not all salient facts are explained to them?
    You have yet to answer or
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday December 26 2002, @09:09AM (#10731)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    You have yet to answer or explain why it is severely flawed - have you coward.
    Re: Her Majesty the Queen: Royal Hijacker of Domai
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday December 23 2002, @11:49AM (#10668)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Do you think it was fair for them to take away barcelona.com, paint.biz, sex.biz, ec.com, heel.com, monacogambling.com, or bahaiwomen.com? They did (or at least tried to... some of these are being challenged in court and may not stand). Place names, generic words, two letter abbreviations, and even the name of a religion were regarded as infringing on somebody's trademark rights.
    'WIPO perverted Trademark Law' characterizes it
    by WIPOorgUK on Monday December 23 2002, @02:08PM (#10675)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    The system is corrupt and fatally flawed you pleb.

    Most people get frightened by the lawyers and fines before it gets to UN WIPO.

    This is very old list - words taken by WIPO include: video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...
    Because it is based on lies
    by WIPOorgUK on Tuesday December 24 2002, @04:22AM (#10683)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Based on the lie - that it is impossible to uniquely identify all registered trademarks on the Internet.

    Based on the lie - that people have no right to use words from the dictionary.

    Why did UN WIPO say that they were stumped - when the solution can easily be demonstrated?

    apple.computer.us.reg
    apple.record.uk.reg

    With solution in place - which one would you think is the Apple Computer trademark?

    Does not take a genius to work it out.

    You deny evidence in front of your face.
    Re: How is it corrupt
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday December 24 2002, @04:57AM (#10687)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    The thread, though, has digressed into various other decisions that are less fair.


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com