DOCSLIB.ORG

THE TROUBLE with the UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY Mrp):DECONSTRUCTINC COMMON ASSUMPTIONS and DEVELOPING a NEW APPROACH to CCCYBERSOUATTING"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE TROUBLE with the UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY Mrp):DECONSTRUCTINC COMMON ASSUMPTIONS and DEVELOPING a NEW APPROACH to CCCYBERSOUATTING THE TROUBLE WITH THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY mRP):DECONSTRUCTINC COMMON ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPING A NEW APPROACH TO CCCYBERSOUATTING" Madeleine Lamothe-Samson thesis submitted in confomity with the requirernents For the degree of Master of Laws (LL.M.) Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto October 1,200 1 O Copyright by Madeleine Lamothe-Samson (2001) National Library Bibiiiéque nationale WD ~fc-da du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Welicrglon Street 395. rue Wellington OtîawaON KlAOW OttawaON KlAW canada CaMda The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exciusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libmy of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, disûibuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur consewe la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT THE TROUBLE WITH THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY VRP): DECONSTRUCTING COMMON ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPING A NEW APPROACH TO "CYBERSOUATTING" Madeleine Lamothe-Samson Master of Law (LL.M.) 2001 Faculty of Law University of Toronto This thesis challenges the association between cybersquatting and trademark infiingement. It shows that only a small number of domain namehademark disputes constitute trademark infkingement, passing off or dilution as prohibited in Canada and the Unites States. It argues that it is a mistake to use trademark law to justim the granting of relief against "cybersquatting", because it arnounts to an unjustified expansion of trademark owner's nghts over the general public's fieedom to use trademarks for non-trademark purposes. It then argues that in order to reduce the number of bad decisions under the ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), it is necessq to identify what exactly is wrong with cybersquatting. After concluding that none of the rationales most often put forward are truly satisfactory, this thesis suggests that the civil law doctrine of abuse of rights is a better legal framework for dispute resolution mechanisms like the UDRP. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 thank rny supervisor, Professor Abraham Drassinower, for his time and helpfùl comments. 1 also thank Dr. Andrew Christie, fiom University of Melbourne, for offering me a different perspective on a topic he knows well and for playing devil's advocate with my arguments, which contnbuted to make thern stronger. 1 thank the Faculty of Law, as well as the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, for permitting me to pursue graduate studies, and for offenng me a stimulating environment. Thanks, also, to al1 my fellow graduate students fiom al1 over the world, for a wonderfùl year in Toronto. Je remercie mes parents, Denis, Denyse, Roger et Micheline, pour leur présence et leur support à toutes les étapes de ce périple d'un an à travers les subtilités du droit, mais aussi à travers les émotions. J'aimerais enfin exprimer tout mon amour et toute ma gratitude à Jean-Christophe, dont la présence, en personne et au téléphone, a grandement contribué à ma réussite. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1- TRADEMARK LAW IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES .......................O.......... 8 A- Canada ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1. Passing Off .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 a) The Existence of Goodwill ........................................................................................................................... 12 b) The Likelihood of Confiision Due to Misrepresentation ............................................................................. 13 (i) Intent to Deceive .................................................................................................................................... 13 (ii) Cognizable Confusion ........................................................................................................................... 13 -Average Consumer .............................................................................................................................. 14 OReasonable Care .................................................................................................................................. 15 c) The Damage ................................................................................................................................................. 16 d) Passing Offand Domain Names .................................................................................................................. 16 (i) A Trip to the United Kingdom ................................................................................................................ 16 (ii) Back in Canada ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2 . Trademark Infiingement ................................................................................................................................... 25 a) The "Use" Requirement .............................................................................................................................. -28 b) The "Confusion" Requirement ................................................................................................................... 29 c) Trademark Infnngement and Domain Names .............................................................................................. 31 B- United States......................................... ...............................................................................................................32 1. Unfair Competition under the Lariham Act ...................................................................................................... -32 2 . Tradernark Infringement under the Lanharn Act ............................................................................................... 32 a) The "Use" Requirement ............................................................................................................................... 33 b) The "Confusion" Requirernent ..................................................................................................................... 36 c) Trademark Infringement and Domain Names .............................................................................................. 37 II- DILUTION: A MOVE FORWARD IN THE RECOGNITION OF TRADEMARKS AS COMMODITIES....................................................................................................................... 46 A- What is Dilution? ........................................ ................................................................................................... 46 8- The United States Model: the Federal Trademark Dilurion Act ..................................................................... 48 1 . Requirements for the Grantins of Relief Under the FTDA ............................................................................. 49 a) "Famousness" of the Trademark ............................................................................................................ 50 b) "Commercial Use in Commerce" ............................................................................................................. 50 c) Likelihood of Dilution ................................................................................................................................. 52 (i).. Dilution by Blurring ................................................................................................................................ 52 (il)Dilution by Tarnishment ....................................................................................................................... 55 2 . Dornain Names. Cybersquatting and the FTDA ............................................................................................ 58 C- The Canadian Version: Section 22 of the Trrrde-marks Act ...................................................................... 65 1. The "Use" Requirement .................................................................................................................................... 65 2 . The "Depreciation" Requirement ...................................................................................................................... 67 3. Domain Names, Cybersquatting and Section 22 ............................................................................................... 72 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft 7-17-11 an EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS of FAIR USE
    Draft 7-17-11 AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FAIR USE DECISIONS UNDER THE UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY David A. Simon INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 I. THE UDRP AND ITS PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 7 II. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Sample Selection: Method of Selection .......................................................................................... 13 B. Types of Cases Selected for Sample............................................................................................... 14 III. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 A. U.S. Respondents Win Twice as Many Fair Use Cases as Other Respondents ............................. 17 B. U.S. Law Dominates UDRP Decisions .......................................................................................... 21 C. U.S. Panels Decide Mostly Cases Involving U.S. Respondents ..................................................... 23 IV. IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 25 A. Explaining U.S. Favoritism
    [Show full text]
  • Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting
    GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING 4 October 2007 Group Chair: Mike Rodenbaugh ICANN Staff: Olof Nordling, Patrick Jones STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the final version of the Outcomes Report from the GNSO ad hoc group on Domain Name Tasting, submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 October, 2007. GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 1 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE 5 3 BACKGROUND 7 4 OUTCOMES 10 5 NEXT STEPS 32 ANNEX 1 - SUBSCRIBERS TO THE DT LIST 33 ANNEX 2 - RFI RESPONSES 34 ANNEX 3 - EXPERIENCES FROM CCTLDS 97 ANNEX 4 - COMMENTS FROM UDRP PROVIDERS 104 ANNEX 5 – IPC CONSTITUENCY SUPPLEMENTAL RFI116 ANNEX 6 – REQUEST TO VERISIGN 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 2 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 1 Executive summary 1.1 Background Following a request from the At-Large Advisory Committee in spring 2007, the GNSO Council called for an Issues Report on Domain Tasting from ICANN Staff in May 2007. This Issues Report, available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain- tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf was discussed at the ICANN San Juan meeting, where the GNSO Council on 27 June 2007 (minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml) resolved to establish an ad hoc group for further fact-finding on the practice of domain tasting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: OECD (2006-04-12), “The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/231550251200 OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 111 The Secondary Market for Domain Names OECD Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL
    [Show full text]
  • How to Efficiently Protect a Domain Name?
    Comparative Law Review 22 2016 Nicolaus Copernicus University http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2016.010 Monika Gaczkowska HOW TO EFFICIENTLY PROTECT A DOMAIN NAME? Abstract Cybercrime rates are increasing in Poland and throughout the world. There are many types of offences concerning internet domains, among others, cybersquatting, typosquatting, cyber smearing, and cyberwildcatting. The following article is a comparative study of the settlement of disputes concerning internet domain names taking as an example the Domain Name Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications (PIIT) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Arbitration and Mediation Center. Between the two processes of recovery of the domains there are many similarities. During the study legislation was sought in the Polish legal system, which is related to internet domains. In Poland, there is no particular legal regulation regarding internet domain names. One may search for protective measures in the Act on Combating Unfair Competition [o zwalczaniu nieuczciwej konkurencji], Industrial Property Law [Prawo własności przemysłowej], and the Civil Code [Kodeks cywilny]. This article commends the settlement of disputes through arbitration and describes them in detail. Keywords cybersquatting – typosquatting – cyber smearing – cyberwildcatting – disputes – internet domains * Monika Gaczkowska graduated from the Warsaw University’s Faculty of Law and Administration. She was an Erasmus student at the Faculty of Law and the International Business Programme of the University of Alicante. She is currently, a PhD student in the field of IP law at Koźmiński University in Warsaw. She participated in postgraduate studies in IT law. She works in one of the leading law firms in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CEE/SEE).
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Mirza N. Baig and Blue Springs )
    Case: 1:08-cv-04206 Document #: 195 Filed: 09/24/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:<pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MIRZA N. BAIG AND BLUE SPRINGS ) WATER CO., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case no. 08-cv-4206 v. ) ) Hon. John Z. Lee THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Mirza Baig and Blue Springs Water Co. allege that Defendant The Coca-Cola Company has infringed upon Plaintiffs’ trademark for “Naturally Zero” spring water through its use of the mark “ZERO” in connection with products such as “Sprite ZERO.” Plaintiffs argue under U.S. trademark law and Canadian trademark law that Defendant’s use of the “ZERO” mark results in reverse confusion to consumers. Defendant denies all wrongdoing and has counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that, inter alia, it has neither infringed nor misappropriated any of Plaintiffs’ trademark rights. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs have abandoned their trademark for “Naturally Zero,” and even if not, that the mark is not entitled to protection. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion, enters judgment in its favor on Count[s] I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and dismisses Count II without prejudice. Case: 1:08-cv-04206 Document #: 195 Filed: 09/24/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:<pageID> Facts1 Plaintiff Mirza N. Baig (“Baig”) was the principal, President, and sole owner of plaintiff Bluesprings Water Co. (“Bluesprings”). Def.’s LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 1. Bluesprings was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois; it is no longer in good standing with the Illinois Secretary of State office.
    [Show full text]
  • Milano Pizzeria Case Study: Hard Lessons Learned by Canadian Licensor
    Milano Pizzeria Case Study: Hard Lessons Learned by Canadian Licensor By Peter Giddens, Christie Bates and Brad Hanna Every now and then a case comes before the courts and serves as a stark reminder that good licensing practices and IP portfolio management are critical to any business. Milano Pizza Ltd. v. 6034799 Canada Inc.’{"'Milano Pizza"') is certainly such a case, highlighting the need to develop rigorous practices when it comes to documenting the creation, acquisition and licensing of IP assets. Milano Pizza is the saga of a family business, operating since the early nineties, which initiated IP infringement proceedings against a disgruntled former licensee. To its utter dismay, it discovered that it could neither claim ownership of the copyright in the company logo it had been using for decades, nor establish that it ever had an enforceable licence in place with any of its 32 operating pizzerias that used the logo, let alone the defendant company. As a result, its copyright claims were dismissed entirely, and its registered trademark faces serious risk of being expunged. This case is a wake-up call to licensors of IP assets who conduct their business affairs on nothing more than a smile and a handshake, perhaps with the imprudent thought that doing so will allow for a savings on legal spend and reduction in administrative burden. Of course, the reality is that such an approach to business is very likely to give rise to unnecessary disputes and expensive litigation, and may lead to the potential loss of exclusive rights to use key IP assets, including the core brand.
    [Show full text]
  • DEVOTED to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT Edited by Gregory J
    NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 6 DEVOTED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT Edited by Gregory J. Battersby Litigatorand Charles W. Grimes FEATURES COLUMNS Strategic Considerations in Litigating Praxis. .23 Design-Arounds. 1 Antitrust By G. Brian Busey, Josh Hartman, and Michelle Yang Discovery Court Finds That Adverse Markman Ruling False Advertising Does Not Automatically Establish Good Cause Practice Areas . .28 to Amend Contentions . .8 Copyright Litigation By Joseph E. Cwik Internet Litigation A Look at IP Rights under the New Patent Litigation Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement . 10 Technology Litigation By Nathan B. Fan Trade Dress Litigation Copyright and Performance Rights Trademark Litigation in an Online Video World. 15 By Mark Sableman Proposed Changes to FRCP Likely to Lead to Heightened Pleading Standard in Patent Suits . 18 By Jason Stach and Jeff Watson Third Circuit Rejects Presumption of Irreparable Harm in Lanham Act Cases. 20 By Meredith Wilkes, John Froemming, Jessica Bradley, and Candice Reder Executive Editors Gregory J. Battersby Charles W. Grimes Editor-in-Chief Michelle Houle Battersby Law Group, LLC, 25 Poplar Plain Road, Westport, CT 06880 (203) 454-9646 Advisory Board David Hill Mark S. Sommers United States Finnegan Henderson Farabow Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP Garrett & Dunner, LLP Edward V. Anderson John Hornick John F. Sweeney Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP Finnegan Henderson Farabow Locke Lord, LLP Spiro Bereveskos Garrett & Dunner, LLP Rod Thompson Woodard Emhardt John C. Jarosz Farella Braun & Martel, LLP Bruce Bernstein Analysis Group Economics, Inc. Edward E. Vassallo Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto Bernstein, Litowitzm Berger & Paul R. Juhasz Grossmann, LLP Juhasz Law James Bikoff Jeffrey L.
    [Show full text]
  • PREDATOR: Proactive Recognition and Elimination of Domain Abuse at Time-Of-Registration
    PREDATOR: Proactive Recognition and Elimination of Domain Abuse at Time-Of-Registration Shuang Hao∗ Alex Kantcheliany Brad Millerx Vern Paxson† Nick Feamsterz ∗ y University of California, Santa Barbara University of California, Berkeley x z Google, Inc. International Computer Science Institute Princeton University [email protected] {akant,vern}@cs.berkeley.edu [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT content [18, 53]. To mitigate these threats, operators routinely build Miscreants register thousands of new domains every day to launch reputation systems for domain names to indicate whether they are Internet-scale attacks, such as spam, phishing, and drive-by down- associated with malicious activity. A common mode for developing loads. Quickly and accurately determining a domain’s reputation reputation for DNS domain names is to develop a blacklist that curates (association with malicious activity) provides a powerful tool for mit- “bad domains”. A network operator who wishes to defend against an igating threats and protecting users. Yet, existing domain reputation attack may use a domain blacklist to help determine whether certain systems work by observing domain use (e.g., lookup patterns, content traffic or infrastructure is associated with malicious activity. hosted)—often too late to prevent miscreants from reaping benefits of Unfortunately, curating a DNS blacklist is difficult because of the attacks that they launch. the high rate of domain registrations and the variety of attacks. For As a complement to these systems, we explore the extent to which example, every day around 80,000 new domains are registered in features evident at domain registration indicate a domain’s subsequent the .com zone, with a peak rate of over 1,800 registrations in a sin- use for malicious activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    BORROWING FROM OUR COMMON LAW COUSINS: AMERICAN AND BRITISH INFLUENCES ON THE MERGER OF CANADIAN TRADEMARK AND INTERNET DOMAIN NAME LAWS Vincent-Joël Proulx∗ I. INTRODUCTION This article explores the intersection of web-based economic activity under Internet domain names and the application of traditional Canadian trademark law, with particular emphasis on U.S. and U.K. influences in Canadian law. In pursuing this objective, the article advocates an inherent adaptability of the scheme of trademark law to online transactions. As a corollary, the paper argues that extant trademark law principles are sufficiently circumscribed and compatible with the Internet in order to adequately govern cyberspace. Aside from a few legislative and/or judicial clarifications, Canadian legislators should not feel compelled to devise a whole new set of rules to regulate online business. In fact, several courts, both in Canada and in other common law jurisdictions, have acknowledged the compatibility between existing intellectual property rules and web-based commercial operations.1 More generally, “courts are increasingly using the cyberspace as place metaphor to justify application of traditional laws governing real property to this new medium,”2 while * LL.L., LL.B., University of Ottawa; LL.M. (International Legal Studies), New York University; Doctoral Candidate, McGill University Institute of Comparative Law. I acknowledge with appreciation the financial support provided by McGill University through the McGill Graduate Studies Fellowship, and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through the Canadian Graduate Scholarship. A shorter French version of this article appears in Un Droit qui laisse sa marque (de commerce), même dans le cyberespace: peut-on transposer au web les règles terrestres de propriété intellectuelle? 16 LES CAHIERS DE PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE 767 (2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS ...............................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 and the Gatekeeper Role of the PTO: Heading Abuse Off at the Pass
    Washington University Law Review Volume 68 Issue 3 Federalist Society Symposium: The Presidency and Congress—Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers January 1990 Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 and the Gatekeeper Role of the PTO: Heading Abuse Off at the Pass Tammy J. Snyder Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Tammy J. Snyder, Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 and the Gatekeeper Role of the PTO: Heading Abuse Off at the Pass, 68 WASH. U. L. Q. 753 (1990). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol68/iss3/18 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRADEMARK LAW REVISION AcT OF 1988 AND THE GATEKEEPER ROLE OF THE PTO: HEADING ABUSE OFF AT THE PASS "No trade-no trademark" has long been the underlying principle of American trademark law.1 Until recently, the Lanham Act2 embodied this maxim by requiring use of a mark prior to federal registration.3 Congress ushered in a new era in trademark registration, however, with the passage of the Trademark Law Revision Act of 19881 (1988 Act). Hailed as the most significant change in trademark law in forty years,5 the 1988 Act includes provisions which for the first time allow domestic applicants to seek registration of a trademark prior to use.6 The 1988 Act essentially creates a dual application system: for marks7 already used in commerce, the "use in commerce" registration system is preserved;' for proposed marks, registration includes filing a notice of "intent to use." 9 The intent-to-use legislation has three primary goals:1° 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Top Level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 13-Jul-2004 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES: MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOCATION ISSUES English - Or. English JT00167437 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL FOREWORD In June 2004 this report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policy (TISP). It was recommended to be made public by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) in July 2004. The report was prepared by Dr. Sam Paltridge and Mr. Masayuki Matsui of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Copyright OECD, 2004 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. 2 DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]