Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Garry Anderson
Date/Time: Mon, January 28, 2002 at 9:50 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: Not


> 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"?

Not 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 "professionally negligent".

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.

Ask anybody in I.T. - the main priorities of any system like this, is for ACCURATE SECURE DATA.

> 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."

Remember 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?

In fact, some may argue that whatever the cost - it would be essential to remove this FLAW.

The 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 'passing off'.

Even if a thousand Sunrises in so-called 'open' TLDs - not all trademarks are guaranteed to be able to use their mark - are they?


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy