| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Barcelona.com Decision Reversed on Appeal
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Quote from court decision: "Therefore, under United States trademark law, "Barcelona" should have been treated as a purely descriptive geo-graphical term entitled to no trademark protection."
The corrupt UN WIPO are trying to increase UDRP abuse of law (Trademark, Antitrust and First Amendment) to include countries and places.
Virtually every word is trademarked (most many times over) - Sunrise and UDRP abridge the use of words by ordinary people.
ICANN know the solution - but they care nothing for the First Amendment. As do some who are too afraid to admit it. Such behaviour is an affront to society.
The DNS is NOT a system just for trademarks. People also have every right to use words for whatever legal reason they wish.
Garry at WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
...about lauding this opinion is that it is a tremendous waste of time and energy to have to have gone so far in order to obtain the no-brainer decision which WIPO should have rendered in the first instance, and which every other purely "geographic name" UDRP case has held.
It does not, as some have suggested, eviscerate application of the UDRP to cross-border disputes. Many correctly-losing respondents will not have the inclination to follow up with litigation.
The court makes clear that by choosing the UDRP, and choosing the UDRP 4(k) jurisdiction, the city ultimately controlled the fact that a US court would have a final say in this matter. The question is, "Why didn't they sue in Spain". Well, they didn't sue in Spain because, despite some bizarre comments by the city's supporters, they knew darn well they wouldn't win there either.
If they believe otherwise then, presuming the lower court orders the name restored, they are STILL free to sue in Spain.
The most gratifying aspect of the decision was the culmination of the efforts of a lot of people in cases such as strick.com, cello.com, and corinthians.com, to finally get a court to point to a section of the Lanham Act and call it the "reverse domain name hi-jacking provision".
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
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
|
