Re: [ifwp] RE: Who is it that needs trademark protection?

Mikki Barry (ooblick@minion.netpolicy.com)
Mon, 18 Jan 1999 14:12:28 -0500


At 1:59 PM -0500 1/18/99, William X. Walsh wrote:
>The main problem with this is that, as you put :
>> the status of case law in the U.S. (which is NOT settled, let alone
>> the rest of the world)
>
>ADR is not made to deal with uncertain caselaw, it works best when the
>case law
>has been pretty well fleshed out in courts to provide all the necessary
>guidance to the arbitrating body.
>
>And further, ADR is available now, at the consent of both parties. Any
>MANDATED ADR, where neither party can elect not to be a part of the ADR, is a
>violation of their rights.
>
>There is no need to mandate ADR, provisions for it exist on our laws already.

And that is exactly the crux of the issue. This is the first case in which
some trademark owners (not all, of course, because the vast majority of
trademark owners do not have domain names, nor are they on the Internet)
want greater rights on the Internet than they have in any other medium.
There has still been very little answer to the question of why they SHOULD
have expanded rights given that existing laws already take care of cases of
infringement, and cases of non infringement should receive no special
status (except perhaps to allow innocent domain name holders to be awarded
attorneys fees for obvious cases of non infringement brought to court
anyway....but that would be a legislative remedy and not one for government
or private party imposition.)

Vint Cerf was right in his contention that trademark issues should NOT be a
part of the DNS discussions. DNS discussions should be completed along
technical lines, and the court system should be deciding issues of
infringement. I know that if INTA and WIPO weren't involved with the
current DNS discussions, I would happily find better things to do with my
time rather than fight this battle.