Re: [ga] UDRP dead?
If you adopt the reasonable approach that a domain name is a service subcontracted to a registry by the domain owner in order to help his guests accessing entities of his domain, the rule should be the users least confusion path.
1. In most of the cases users will want famous marks to point to famous marks sites, for the simple reason that one could describe famous marks as such. DrikingCocaCola.com is not expected to be a domain where one will drink Pepsi. But FuckingCoke.com yes.
2. the decision by the domain owner is to chose a name and to use a registry. These are two ways to convey a message to the users. They should both be consistent with what the users currently expect (ex. nowadays, users do not expect anymore that ".net" is associated with some network management).
This approach seems very near from the US one you describe. But of general common understanding.
UDRP is only a way to sort out a problem. Ideally, a pre-UDRP discussion between the opponents (like in the CH UDRP) and a possible appeal/confirmation or advise to/by the association of the Registrants would be advisable. But there should be a structured @large or consumer association.
At 19:04 13/04/04, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> "Welcome. You were probably looking for www.cocacola.com . But, 2 out > of 3 people in a blind taste test preferred the refreshing taste of > Pepsi. Try the choice of the New Generation at www.pepsi.com and get a > free coupon to save $1 on your next purchase." > > Fair use?