Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>]

Olivier MJ Crepin Leblond and Daniel Dalchev wrote, respectively:

>>In line with some of the IAHC recommendations, why do we not confine this
>>60 day period for registration to the .tm.int , or the respective
>>.tm.<iso3166> domains ? We'll end-up with a very stable hierarchy of
>>trademark addresses. At the same time, there should be no 60-day period for
>>registration of domains under other gTLDs, thus keeping in line with the
>>fast-changing nature and evolution of the Internet.
>>Ad to this, an (official) suggestion by the IAHC that trademark issues
>>cannot be addressed under gTLDs other than .tm.int and .tm.<iso3166>.
>
>This is good alternative. It is likely that will be much more in line with
>current procedures/trends in many countries. Such separation would also make
>it more clear that Internet domain names have primary purpose of being used
>for addressing in Internet - while trademark names do not.

The intent of the .tm spaces is not to replace trademark law in the other
spaces.  This is made clear in section 6.2.1 of the IAHC draft:


	It should be made clear that there would be no obligation on
	the part of any trademark owner to register in any of the
	trademark-related domain name spaces, or to be listed in any
	associated trademark-domain name directory.  In addition,
	there would be no negative legal consequences to a trademark
	owner for not having a trademark-related domain name or not
	being listed in a trademark-domain name directory.  In
	particular, the existence of a trademark-related domain name
	space does not imply that trademark rights in other top-
	level domain name spaces are negatively affected in any way.

Albert Tramposch
WIPO
IAHC member, speaking on my own behalf