Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>]

Simon:

You wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>I don't understand this reasoning. Surely the trademark holder is
>obligated to defend (and therefore register) his/her mark to prevent
>it's misuse. Failing to do this could result in the loss of the mark.
>Isn't this the complete opposite of what this paragraph is saying?

The paragraph is simply saying that the *existence* of the .tm space does not
change, in any way, a trademark owner's rights or obligations (as you point out)
with respect to the other domain name spaces.  It simply provides an alternative
for those trademark owners that want to take advantage of it.

I am not sure, however, that the obligation to defend a trademark means that a
trademark owner is under an obligation to register the trademark as a domain
name to prevent its misuse.  This seems like a stretch.

If you are saying that having a .tm trademark registration does not relieve a
trademark owner from policing the other domain name spaces, this is probably
true.  However, it is not intended to do that.

Albert Tramposch
WIPO
IAHC member, speaking on my own behalf