http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/99602.htm
Moreover, we are persuaded by the reasoning of the Panel in Brisbane City Council v. Warren Boulton Consulting PTY LTD, D2001-0047 (WIPO May 7, 2001), and the Panel in City of Salinas v. Baughn, FA 97076 (Nat Arb. Forum June 4, 2001), with respect to the limited applicability of the Policy to geographically descriptive marks. As the learned Panels noted in both City of Salinas and Brisbane City, the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (theâInterim Reportâ), issued on April 12, 2001, contained a detailed discussion pertaining to âGeographical Indications, Indications of Source and other Geographical Termsâ and suggest that such names of geographical places are not within the Policy. While this discussion is not determinative of our decision here, it does inform our basic belief that the names of geographical locations, such as the City of Salinas, have a limited capacity to perform the function of a trademark as required by the Policy. See, e.g., Interim Report at paragraph 277 (stating that âthe protection of place names within the gTLDs is a novel conceptâ); see also, Interim Report at paragraph 282 (stating that to provide such protection, it would be necessary to revise the Policy by way of âthe incorporation into it of an additional cause of actionâ). See Brisbane City and City of Salinas, supra. As further noted in Brisbane City Council v. Warren Bottom Consulting Pty Ltd., No. D2001 -0047 (WIPO May 7, 2001), âThe assumption which underlies this discussion in the Interim Report appears to be that, as a general rule, place names per se are not trademarks for the purposes of the Uniform Policy.â
