Scholarlink

In September 2001, the World Intellectual Property Organisation released the Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Process (“the Second Report”). While discussing several identifiers as potential rights as a basis for complaints under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for cancelling domain names, the Report excluded geographical indications (GIs) as one such prior right. This paper examines the stark irrelevance of this exclusion in the Second Report 23 years after its publication. In particular, the emergence of GIs as a prominent IPR in the world in these 23 years cannot be ignored. Some of the reasons why GIs emerged as a prominent IPR are; (i) the increased awareness and GI protection activities among developed and developing nations which makes GI protection as normal as other intellectual property rights, (ii) the visible harmonization and uniformity in GI protection using sui generis laws by nations of the world, (iii) the support from organizations and institutions that protect GIs in pushing GIs to the forefront as a branding tool, and (iv) the enactment of the Geneva Act, 2015 which recognizes the wider term “geographical indications”, thus potentially quelling the concerns raised in the Second Report on the lack of uniformity in the protection granted and the inability of the existing systems to fit in violations of GIs in the domain name world. In this context, two recent European Regulations [EC Regulation Nos. 2023/2411 and 2024/1143] that contain certain effective solutions for addressing and preventing the misuse of GIs as domain names become significant. These Regulations could be a trigger to break the barrier placed by the Second Report for GIs to be a basis for domain name complaints. These Regulations are also an answer to the problematic finding in the Second Report that the issue of the use of GIs as domain names by unconnected persons could be addressed only by creating a new law in view of the inadequacies of the existing laws. It is the author’s hope that these European Regulations could inspire other nations to enact similar laws in addressing the glaring gap in domain name protection in a world that is increasingly turning digital.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Domain Name Protection for Geographical Indications: A European Gamechanger

  • 章节

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Latha R. Nair

摘要

In September 2001, the World Intellectual Property Organisation released the Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Process (“the Second Report”). While discussing several identifiers as potential rights as a basis for complaints under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for cancelling domain names, the Report excluded geographical indications (GIs) as one such prior right. This paper examines the stark irrelevance of this exclusion in the Second Report 23 years after its publication. In particular, the emergence of GIs as a prominent IPR in the world in these 23 years cannot be ignored. Some of the reasons why GIs emerged as a prominent IPR are; (i) the increased awareness and GI protection activities among developed and developing nations which makes GI protection as normal as other intellectual property rights, (ii) the visible harmonization and uniformity in GI protection using sui generis laws by nations of the world, (iii) the support from organizations and institutions that protect GIs in pushing GIs to the forefront as a branding tool, and (iv) the enactment of the Geneva Act, 2015 which recognizes the wider term “geographical indications”, thus potentially quelling the concerns raised in the Second Report on the lack of uniformity in the protection granted and the inability of the existing systems to fit in violations of GIs in the domain name world. In this context, two recent European Regulations [EC Regulation Nos. 2023/2411 and 2024/1143] that contain certain effective solutions for addressing and preventing the misuse of GIs as domain names become significant. These Regulations could be a trigger to break the barrier placed by the Second Report for GIs to be a basis for domain name complaints. These Regulations are also an answer to the problematic finding in the Second Report that the issue of the use of GIs as domain names by unconnected persons could be addressed only by creating a new law in view of the inadequacies of the existing laws. It is the author’s hope that these European Regulations could inspire other nations to enact similar laws in addressing the glaring gap in domain name protection in a world that is increasingly turning digital.