Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Fri, March 30, 2001 at 9:20 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK

Message:
 

 
As this concerns requirement for new TLDs.

Nominet UK is the Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The existing Dispute Resolution Service is under review. I sent this open letter:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, “As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform.”

Saying, “…we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance”, they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the “Intellectual Property” of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the ‘good guys’ (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.

There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.
 

Link: WIPO.org.uk


Message Thread: