ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

comment to URS

  • To: urs-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: comment to URS
  • From: Vadim Kolosov <vadim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:48:30 +0300


I would say that this imitative is worth looking into only provided it is 
improved considerably.
Trademark holders seek to obtain rights to a domain name if a domain name is 
obviously affiliated with them (for example, consist only of a trademark and a 
zone) and if a domain name consists of a trademark and some other descriptive 
term then in most cases trademark holders still would not be satisfied with 
suspension or even cancellation of the domain name. So in first group of 
disputes it is very unlikely that trademark holders will enjoy the URS. And 
second group hardly will be popular either.
Drafters of the URS should probably think in the following directions:
a) raise the standards for the complainants (eg., i) the distinctive part of a 
domain name in dispute should be identical to a trademark but not confusingly 
similar, ii) the website should demonstrate its use for the goods/services the 
trademark is registered for) and the outcome of the procedure should be as in 
UDRP. That will be the new procedure for so-called "clear and obvious cases" 
and this one can become really useful, AND/OR
b) if we leave suspension as a remedy, then probably we should turn from 
trademark protection to copyright protection, because when the whole web-site 
clearly infringes copyright, then the most efficient way to fight the infringer 
is to suspend the domain name (act through the registrar, but not the 
That's to be short.

Best regards,
Vadim Kolosov
Tel.: +7 (812) 4544656
ICQ: 688 585 29
Skype: vadim.kolosov

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy