Comments on: Only in Canada? .CA Whois Policy will create more uncertainty for Trade-mark owners http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/ Commentary on Canadian Trademarks & Technology Law Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:51:26 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Canadian Trademark Blog » Dot-ca Whois Privacy Policy http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/comment-page-1/#comment-5317 Canadian Trademark Blog » Dot-ca Whois Privacy Policy Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:01:03 +0000 http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/#comment-5317 [...] As an update to earlier posts (here and here), the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) announced the results of its consultation with the public regarding implementing changes to the dot-ca domain name Whois Privacy Policy.  Under the proposed new policy, technical information will still be displayed on the Whois information for a dot-ca domain name but access to registrant personal information will require submission of a formal request for disclosure of such information.  There is also a proposed opt-in rule by which individual registrants may choose to have their personal information publicly accessible in the Whois database. [...] [...] As an update to earlier posts (here and here), the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) announced the results of its consultation with the public regarding implementing changes to the dot-ca domain name Whois Privacy Policy.  Under the proposed new policy, technical information will still be displayed on the Whois information for a dot-ca domain name but access to registrant personal information will require submission of a formal request for disclosure of such information.  There is also a proposed opt-in rule by which individual registrants may choose to have their personal information publicly accessible in the Whois database. [...]

]]> By: Canadian Trademark Blog » Update on CIRA’s new WHOIS Policy http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/comment-page-1/#comment-3144 Canadian Trademark Blog » Update on CIRA’s new WHOIS Policy Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:46:43 +0000 http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/#comment-3144 [...]  See our posting of August 22, 2006 which discusses the proposed changes to CIRA’s WHOIS policy and the implications of those changes.  From the above Board minutes, it sounds like this will become reality in the next few months. [...] [...]  See our posting of August 22, 2006 which discusses the proposed changes to CIRA’s WHOIS policy and the implications of those changes.  From the above Board minutes, it sounds like this will become reality in the next few months. [...]

]]> By: Unhappy http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Unhappy Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:02:09 +0000 http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/#comment-40 I am very concerned with the proposed CIRA whois policy. CIRA's website proudly boasts that in implementing the new whois policy they will become leaders in protecting the rights of individual domain name registrants. However, given the lack of a commercial purpose exemption, it is hard to understand how this new policy is likely to advance the interests of those of us actually working in the .ca domain space. Perhaps as a trade-mark lawyer who has come to rely on whois searches as part of an assesment of the desirability of marks proposed by my clients I am biased. The only rationale for the policy that I can think of is that it might be a ploy to increase the number of parties who are forced to rely on CIRA and the CDRP process. This greatly limits the freedom of individual parties to come to commercial or other arrangements between themselves relating to the appropriate use of a given domain. Whatever the reason, this policy appears to be yet another move by CIRA to shore up their control of the .ca domain space. I was quite surprised when the .ca domain name community voted in February to allow CIRA to expand its mandate to allow it a carte blanche increase in the scope of activities it could engage in, while at the same time giving CIRA control (through the appointment of the nomination committee) of the the futre of its own board. While CIRA's intentions in increasing their control of the .ca domain space may be good, I am concerned that their ultimate impact - when CIRA's board might not be as civic minded a group of individuals as it currently is - will be to stifle the freedom which has always been and integral part of the internet. Freedom of the community to elect their board has been surrendered at the same time that CIRA has taken the right to extend its authority into any area of the .ca domain space it wants. Beyond this the freedom of parties to contact and address one another directly about their interests in particular .ca domains is about to be lost. I am very concerned with the proposed CIRA whois policy. CIRA’s website proudly boasts that in implementing the new whois policy they will become leaders in protecting the rights of individual domain name registrants. However, given the lack of a commercial purpose exemption, it is hard to understand how this new policy is likely to advance the interests of those of us actually working in the .ca domain space.

Perhaps as a trade-mark lawyer who has come to rely on whois searches as part of an assesment of the desirability of marks proposed by my clients I am biased. The only rationale for the policy that I can think of is that it might be a ploy to increase the number of parties who are forced to rely on CIRA and the CDRP process. This greatly limits the freedom of individual parties to come to commercial or other arrangements between themselves relating to the appropriate use of a given domain.

Whatever the reason, this policy appears to be yet another move by CIRA to shore up their control of the .ca domain space. I was quite surprised when the .ca domain name community voted in February to allow CIRA to expand its mandate to allow it a carte blanche increase in the scope of activities it could engage in, while at the same time giving CIRA control (through the appointment of the nomination committee) of the the futre of its own board.

While CIRA’s intentions in increasing their control of the .ca domain space may be good, I am concerned that their ultimate impact – when CIRA’s board might not be as civic minded a group of individuals as it currently is – will be to stifle the freedom which has always been and integral part of the internet.

Freedom of the community to elect their board has been surrendered at the same time that CIRA has taken the right to extend its authority into any area of the .ca domain space it wants. Beyond this the freedom of parties to contact and address one another directly about their interests in particular .ca domains is about to be lost.

]]> By: Neil Melliship http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Neil Melliship Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:08:14 +0000 http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/#comment-25 Thanks for your comment. I'm guessing from your comment you haven't been involved in an actual CDRP proceeding, but apologies in advance if I'm incorrect on that point. I've been involved as Complainant's counsel on several CDRP proceedings and the problems I'm referring to arise from the fact that the Complainant has to prove (or at least file some evidence) that the Registrant registered the domain name in bad faith (which is narrowly defined, unlike the UDRP) and has no legitimate interest in the domain name. You need to review the CDRP Policy on what constitutes both bad faith and legitimate interest in order to appreciate why it would be more difficult to do this in the absence of knowlege about the identity of the Registrant. In my view, the Complainant is at a disadvantage on both counts if it doesn't know who the Registrant is. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable obstacle, just an obstacle that isn't justified, again in my view, by the privacy concerns that have driven CIRA to adopt the new Whois policy - particularly where the domain name links to a commercial site. Thanks for your comment. I’m guessing from your comment you haven’t been involved in an actual CDRP proceeding, but apologies in advance if I’m incorrect on that point. I’ve been involved as Complainant’s counsel on several CDRP proceedings and the problems I’m referring to arise from the fact that the Complainant has to prove (or at least file some evidence) that the Registrant registered the domain name in bad faith (which is narrowly defined, unlike the UDRP) and has no legitimate interest in the domain name. You need to review the CDRP Policy on what constitutes both bad faith and legitimate interest in order to appreciate why it would be more difficult to do this in the absence of knowlege about the identity of the Registrant. In my view, the Complainant is at a disadvantage on both counts if it doesn’t know who the Registrant is. I’m not saying it’s an insurmountable obstacle, just an obstacle that isn’t justified, again in my view, by the privacy concerns that have driven CIRA to adopt the new Whois policy – particularly where the domain name links to a commercial site.

]]> By: TMTommy http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/comment-page-1/#comment-13 TMTommy Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:30:21 +0000 http://www.trademarkblog.ca/only-in-canada-ca-whois-policy-will-create-more-uncertainty-for-trade-mark-owners/#comment-13 It's not clear to me how under the CDRP that disguising one's name will encumber a complainant from asserting it's claim. after all, the content of the site(s), any pre-existing trademark registrations and the relative dates of the domain registrations should speak volumes, no? though admittedly, without further research it's not clear to me how the UDRP has dealt with this problem (if at all?) It’s not clear to me how under the CDRP that disguising one’s name will encumber a complainant from asserting it’s claim. after all, the content of the site(s), any pre-existing trademark registrations and the relative dates of the domain registrations should speak volumes, no? though admittedly, without further research it’s not clear to me how the UDRP has dealt with this problem (if at all?)

]]>