> Proving negligence in cases like this are always very difficult and require
a lot of expensive experts to testify.
Only 2 experts are required - system analyst
and TM lawyer.
> Even if you were to demonstrate that a basic programmer knows
how to validate data, the decision not to validate it by management may not necessarily
have caused a reduction in 'fraudulent' registrants ('cause and effect' is required
in professional misconduct).
So if DuPont was given the prompt -
Enter your EXACT
and FULL trademark:
They would not have entered "The miracles of science"?
doing so would be fraudulant, would it not?
So then - that would have reduced domains
wrongly entered into Sunrise.
> In fact, some may argue that it would have made
the situation worse; instead of entering 'none' or similar strings, many squatters
would have entered the exact mark required, making these types of entries much more
difficult to identify.
Made worse? - I presume then that you agree that they were
You are funny Alex - try to find an incompetent imbecile
who would argue they allowed all crap data to be entered, to trap squatters out.
anybody in I.T. - the main priorities of any system like this, is for ACCURATE SECURE
> On the second issue of whether this process was indended all along by
the registry in an attempt to 'defraud' squatters or the public at large, would be
even more difficult to show, and without substantial evidence (e.g. leaked internal
memos), merely conjecture.
Hmmmmmmmm - so bank experts, after helping themselves
to loads of money, deliberately leave the bank vault open:
On the balance of probabilities
- which do you favour?
Professional Negligence or fraud?
> RE: the decision
not to validate TMs at local TM registries was a private policy one: Spokespeople
for Afilias have already publicy commented that such validation would have made the
cost prohibitive to some people. Yes, a handful of TM registries are online, but
the majority are not, so this complicates matters.
Private Policy, to quote you,
"does not completely indemnify any signatory against professional negligence."
reading somewhere that one registrar required a fax of trademark certificate to proceed.
Why not a form letter/fax to a countries trademark office? A couple of minutes per
registration should cover it. The cost would not be prohibitive, would it?
some may argue that whatever the cost - it would be essential to remove this FLAW.
BBC called it a "Police farce".
This FLAW makes the whole Sunrise thing a complete
joke - does it not?
Sunrise was all bull* propaganda anyway - it does not solve
anything: It will not solve 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or stop anybody
Even if a thousand Sunrises in so-called 'open' TLDs - not all trademarks
are guaranteed to be able to use their mark - are they?