(Detailed Report Here)
Summary of Recommendations on the Second WIPO Internet
Domain Name Process
A) International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for
Pharmaceutical Substances
The Chair concluded that many delegations favored the
protection of INNs in the Domain Name System against registration as domain
names in order to protect the integrity of the INN system. While it was decided
not to recommend a specific form of protection at this stage, it was agreed that
the Secretariat should, in cooperation with the World Health Organization
continue to monitor the situation and, if necessary, bring to the attention of
the Member States any material change in the situation.
B)Trade Names
The Chair noted that views were divided as to whether the
UDRP should be modified to accommodate trade names. One group of countries
wished to treat trade names in the same manner as trademarks; others felt that
there was no internationally accepted legal basis to underpin the extension.
It was decided that Member States should keep the
matter under review and raise the matter for further discussion if the situation
so demanded.
C) ersonal Names
The Chair noted that the Special Session’s decision was that
no action is recommended in this area.
D) Names and Acronyms of International Intergovernmental
Organizations (IGOs)
1. The Special Session recommends that the UDRP be modified
to provide for complaints to be filed by an international intergovernmental
organization (IGO)
A. on the ground that the registration or use, as a
domain name, of the name or abbreviation of the IGO that has been
communicated under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention is of a
nature
(i) to suggest to the public that a connection exists
between the domain name holder and the IGO; or
(ii) to mislead the public as to the existence of a
connection between the domain name holder and the IGO; or
B. on the ground that the registration or use, as a
domain name, of a name or abbreviation protected under an international
treaty violates the terms of that treaty.
2. The Special Session further recommends that the UDRP
should also be modified, for the purposes of complaints mentioned in
paragraph 1, to take account of and respect the privileges and immunities of
IGOs in international law. In this respect, IGOs should not be required, in
using the UDRP, to submit to the jurisdiction of national courts. However, it
should be provided that decisions given in a complaint filed under the
modified UDRP by an IGO should be subject, at the request of either party to
the dispute, to de novo review through binding arbitration.
3. The Delegation of the United States of America
dissociated itself from this recommendation.
E) Country Names
The Chair concluded that:
1. Most delegations favored some form of protection for
country names against registration or use by persons unconnected with the
constitutional authorities of the country in question.
2. As regards the details of the protection, delegations
supported the following:
(i) A new list of the names of countries should be drawn
up using the UN Bulletin and, as necessary, the ISO Standard (it being noted
that the latter list includes the names of territories and entities that are
not considered to be States in international law and practice). Both the
long or formal names and the short names of countries should be included, as
well as any additional names by which countries are commonly known and which
they notify to the Secretariat before June 30, 2002.
(ii) Protection should cover both the exact names and
misleading variations thereof.
(iii) Each country name should be protected in the
official language(s) of the country concerned and in the six official
languages of the United Nations.
(iv) The protection should be extended to all top-level
domains, both gTLDs and ccTLDs.
(v) The protection should be operative against the
registration or use of a domain name which is identical or misleadingly
similar to a country name, where the domain name holder has no right
or legitimate interest in the name and the domain name is of a nature that
is likely to mislead users into believing that there is an association
between the domain name holder and the constitutional authorities of the
country in question.
3. The Delegations of Australia, Canada and the United
States of America dissociated themselves from this recommendation.
F) Geographical Indications
(i) Decided that it was not timely to take definitive
decisions with respect to the protection of geographical indications in the
Domain Name System.
(ii) Noted that some delegations considered that the issue
needed urgent attention, while others considered that a number of fundamental
questions concerning the protection of geographical indications needed to be
resolved before the question of their protection in the Domain Name System
could be discussed.
(iii) Recommends that the WIPO General Assembly revert this
issue to the regular session of the SCT to decide how the issue of the
protection of geographical indications in the Domain Name System be dealt
with.
