WLS subscriptions in bad faith?

[beatz]

Just wondering if in fact WLS kicks in and say somebody manages to get hold of a WLS for TM domain like Yahoo.com etc - would there be a way for the TM holder to bring that very WLS subscription to WIPO or even court arguing the WLS subscription for that name could only have happened out of bad faith to for instance force Yahoo buy the WLS from the current subscriber to protect themselves?
Just hypothetical, still wondering though.

 

[Shiftlock]

I don't think this could happen. The WLS subscriber will not have infringed upon the trademark. If the name drops and the WLS holder gets the domain, that's the time for the TM holder to take action. You can't sue someone for something they haven't done yet. I'm not a lawyer, but this is how I see it. It's a moot point anyway, because if the domain holder cares that much, they just won't let the domain drop.

 

[jberryhill]

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00248.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit
by
> > a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
> > sunrise WLSes.
>
> That's true. Upon institution of the WLS, there will clearly be a rush of
> applicants to get onto the WLS. This could overload the registry's
> capability to deal with management of the WLS, in addition to encouraging
> WLS-squatting.
>
> So, yes, a sunrise period for registered trademark holders would make
sense.
> Then, we'll need a WLS sunrise challenge procedure prior to population of
> the actual WLS queue, and then a WLSDRP for claims arising once operation
of
> the WLS goes forward.
>
> The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> all, in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> the inception of ICANN. This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> property owners.