CPT's August 11, 2000 Comment on Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process

August 11, 2000

to:  process.mail@wipo.int

WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
World Intellectual Property Organization
34 chemin des Colombettes
P.O. Box 18, 1211 Geneva 20

Dear Sir or Madam,
Attached are comments of the Consumer Project on Technology on
the current WIPO Request for Comment on the Terms of Reference,
Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name
Process.  (http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc1/index.html).


James Love
Director, Consumer Project on Technology

CPT Comments On Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for
the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process

1.   csa-canada.com and csa-international.net


     CSA International (a.k.a. Canadian Standards Association) v.
     John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc.

In this case, a firm named Care Tech Industries sought to obtain
certification of an ozone generator from the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA).  The CSA has a trademark on CSA and CSA
International, and owns the domain CSA-International.org.  Care
Tech then registered csa-canada.com and csa-international.net,
which it used to criticize CSA, for its decision not the certify
the Care Tech production.

According to the WIPO panel:

     Respondents maintain websites at each of these
     addresses. At each website, Respondents attack and
     criticise the Complainant and its staff in relation,
     inter alia, to its failure to certify Respondents'
     Odatus generator. The content of each site is
     substantially identical, and each directs viewers to
     see "our homepage". Following that link leads to the
     "odatus.com" homepage which includes promotion of the
     Odatus ozone generator.
     . . . they are not using the domain names in connection
     with a bona fide offering of goods or services and they
     do not claim to be commonly known by either of the
     domain names. Examination of Respondents' web pages
     clearly show that they are using their domain names to
     attract persons to their sites for the purpose of
     publicly attacking the Complainant and members of its
     staff and pleading its case in relation to a dispute
     between themselves and the Complainant in relation to a
     product which Respondents offer under the trade mark
     Odatus. Persons attracted to the site are likely to be
     persons seeking contact with Complainant, not persons
     seeking contact with Respondents.

     Respondents claim to rights and legitimate interests is
     essentially based on a claim to freedom of speech and,
     expression of opinion, but that right does not require
     the use of Complainant's trade marks in the domain
     names for that purpose.
The WIPO panel concluded that Care Tech did not have rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, that they
were registered and were used in bad faith, and ordered the
domain names transferred to the Canadian Standards Organization.

CPT Comment:

1.   This decision was wrong.  The right of a person or a firm to
     criticize a standards body or a government organization is a
     legitimate interest.  There was no suggestion that the
     domains were used to confuse the public as to the identity
     of the CSA. 

2.   The use of the trademarked name in the domain name was
     appropriate, just as would be the use of the trademarked
     name in the title of a book or the title of a web page.  As
     the decision notes, the web sites were clearly attacks on
     the CSA by an aggrieved party, and would not have been
     confused as an official CSA web page. 

3.   The fact that the interest of Care Tech was commercial did
     not mean that Care Tech did not have a legitimate free
     speech right to criticize the CSA.

2.  DodgeViper.com


This is a UDRP decision involving a web site,
http://www.dodgeviper.com, which was run by a fan of Dodge
Vipers, since 1996.  Dodge had even provided a link to his site
in one of the Dodge Viper magazines.  Then the Dodge legal
department went after the site.   According to one observer, the
panelist "found bad faith registration and bad faith use on
literally no supportive facts.


1.  Expansion of the TLD space could help address these problems,
by creating TLDs such as .fans, .owners or .users.  

2.  There is a legitimate purpose in consumers creating web sites
to discuss products.  They should be permitted to use the name of
the product in the domain name, so long as the web site doesn't
purport to be an official company site.  The dodgevipers.com site
is clear that it is a fan site, and not a Dodge site.

3.  The UDRP should reverse its decision in the dodgevipers.com

3.   Crew.com


This is the decision that gave J. Crew the rights to crew.com.  

Crew.com was registered by Telepathy, a speculator in domain
names.  It was not being used for a real web page.  J. Crew tried
to buy crew.com, but did not come to terms with Telepathy, and
then used the UDRP to take it away.  Crew is a generic word.  J.
Crew has apparently registered crew as a trademark.   J. Crew
also has jcrew.com for its web page.

The MIT Dictionary Server gives quite a few definitions for Crew:

     Crew Crew (kr?), n. (Zo"ol.)
        The Manx shearwater.

     Crew Crew (kr?), n. From older accrue accession,
     reinforcement, hence, company, crew; the first syllable
     being misunderstood as the indefinite article. See Accrue,  

          1. A company of people associated together; an
          assemblage; a throng.

               There a noble crew Of lords and ladies stood on
               every side.  --Spenser.

               Faithful to whom? to thy rebellious crew?

          2. The company of seamen who man a ship, vessel, or at;
          the company belonging to a vessel or a boat.

               Note: The word crew, in law, is ordinarily used as
               equivalent to ship's company, including master and
               other officers. When the master and other officers
               are excluded, the context always shows it.
               --Story. Burrill.

          3. In an extended sense, any small body of men
          associated for a purpose; a gang; as (Naut.), the
          carpenter's crew; the boatswain's crew.

               Syn: Company; band; gang; horde; mob; herd;
               throng; party.

     Crew Crew (kr?), imp. of Crow.

     Crow Crow (kr?), v. i. imp. Crew (kr?) or Crowed (kr?d); p.
     p. Crowed (Crown (kr?n), Obs.); p. pr. & vb. n. Crowing. AS.
     cr?wan; akin to D. kraijen, G. kr?hen, cf. Lith. groti to
     croak. root24. Cf. Crake. 

          1. To make the shrill sound characteristic of a cock,
          either in joy, gayety, or defiance. ``The cock had
          crown.'' --Bayron.

               The morning cock crew loud.   --Shak.

          2. To shout in exultation or defiance; to brag.

          3. To utter a sound expressive of joy or pleasure.

               The sweetest little maid, That ever crowed for
               kisses. --Tennyson.

               To crow over, to exult over a vanquished

               Sennacherib crowing over poor Jerusalem. --Bp.

CPT agrees with the dissent by panel member G. Gervaise Davis

     We are not legislators, but arbitrators. The majority,
     in an effort to stop a practice that it seems to take
     upon itself to believe is an unstated purpose of the
     ICANN Policy, has completely over-stepped its mandate
     as arbitrators. The decision creates a new and
     unauthorized test out of whole cloth, based on
     assumptions of fact by arbitrators without evidence on
     the subject, instead of using the appropriate and
     carefully crafted three step test for required evidence
     set out by the ICANN Policy and Rules. In my judgment,
     the majority's decision prohibits conduct which was not
     intended to be regulated by the ICANN policy. This
     creates a dangerous and unauthorized situation whereby
     the registration and use of common generic words as
     domains can be prevented by trademark owners wishing to
     own their generic trademarks in gross. I cannot and
     will not agree to any such decision, which is
     fundamentally wrong. I respectfully dissent from the
     majority decision of my fellow professional panelists.

CPT Comment:

1.   The UDRP should not have given J. Crew the rights to
     crew.com.  Crew is a generic word.  J. Crew had registered
     jcrew.com, a domain name that was clearly different from
     crew.com.  It is anticompetitive for the UDRP to take away
     domains based upon generic words to a company that has a
     different name.   

4.  Penguin.Org


CPT agreed with this decision.  Penguin Books Limited is a large
publisher of paperback books, and the owner of penguin.com.

Anthony Katz is known to his friends as "the Penguin."   He had
registered penguin.org  He also appeared to have been very well
represented in the WIPO proceeding.  His side told the panel:

     i.   Anthony Katz was known as "Penguin" long before said
          domain name  was registered.

     ii.  Mr Katz has made only two uses of the said domain name
          , firstly as a personal e-mail address and
          secondly as the address of a personal www site. [Avery
          Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 1999 WL 635767 (9th Circuit.
          August 23, 1999), use of names a e-mail addresses does
          not constitute commercial use] 

     iii. Mr Katz registered said domain name  to
          establish a www site dedicated to penguins (the birds).


     xii. Mr Katz is not a cybersquatter: he is known as
          "Penguin"; he did not register the other domain names
           (registered August 24, 1998);
           (registered October 5, 1998) and
           (registered October 5, 1998) with the
          intention of re-sale. His circumstances can be
          distinguished from the position of the Respondent in
          Nabisco Brands Company v. The Patron Group, Inc. WIPO
          Case No. 2000-0032, February 23, 2000, David W. Plant,
          Presiding Panelist, as in that case the Respondent
          owned at least 53 domain names identical or virtually
          identical to registered U.S.A. trade marks of other
          companies such as Nestle, General Mills, Nabisco, AT&T,
          Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble and Warner-Lambert. In that
          case the Complainant established a continuous and
          obvious pattern of cybersquatting whereas Mr Katz
          registrations do not even remotely approach the pattern
          reviewed in Nabisco Brands.

   xviii. Hundreds, if not thousands of domain names have been
          registered in the name of families. It is not wrongful
          conduct so to do.

     xix. When registering a domain name, there is no obligation
          to disclose the nature of the entity identified as the
          registrant. There is no obligation under Texas law to
          register an alias of an individual or entity such as a
          partnership that does not conduct any business or
          commercial activities whatsoever.

     xx.  There is no evidence that Mr Katz registered the domain
          name in the name of the Katz Family to conceal his
          identity, as the WHOIS database identifies him as the
          administrative contact and provides his e-mail address
          at his current place of employment.

     xxi. The word "Penguin" and the mascot character "Tux" have
          become irreversibly associated with the LINUX computer
          system. Accordingly there is no bad faith in Mr Katz
          electing to show his personal allegiance to the LINUX
          operating system by posting an image of Tux on his

    xxii. Non commercial sites often identify the software that
          underlie the site Mr Katz has elected to identify the
          LINUX software and he gives a number of examples of
          other sites that do this.

In finding for Anthony Katz, who was permitted to keep
penguin.org, the WIPO panel noted:

          "This Administrative Panel is reluctant to
          engage in the activity of policing how much
          development the owner of a clearly personal
          Web site must do, in the absence of any other
          evidence of bad faith. Any attempt to apply
          any objective minimum standards for
          development could well impose a significant
          economic burden on innocent registrants as a
          precondition of holding their domain names.  

CPT Comment:

1.   WIPO was correct in permitting Anthony Katz to retain the
     use of Penguin.org.  

2.   There was nothing on the Penguin.org page that would lead
     one to believe that it was the publisher of Penguin Books.

3.   There are many legitimate uses of the word Penguin,
     including, for example, web pages about Penguin birds or
     about Linux, software which uses Penguins as a mascott, not
     to mention Penguin sporting or social clubs.  

4.   An expansion of the TLD space, creating such TLDs as .books,
     .birds, software or other TLDs, would help avoid such

5.   ICANN should not be in the business of deciding whether or
     not the Penguin domain should be used for the sale of books,
     for a site devoted to the Penguin birds, to promote sporting
     teams, for Linux software, or for personal use.  These are
     all legitimate uses of the word Penguin.

6.   In this case, it appears as though the respondent was well
     represented. CPT is concerned about cases where the
     respondent is not able to obtain effective representation.  

5.   Esquire.Com


This is an arbitration decision that took away the domain
esquire.com, and gave it to Hearst Magazines, the publisher of
Esquire, the US mens magazine.  There was apparently evidence
that the original domain name holder, Mail.com,  had plans to use
this as a vanity email address.  This is from the dissent in the
opinion, written by Milton Mueller:

     "There is growing precedent within US law and within
     the UDRP that resale of domain names per se is not
     evidence of actionable bad faith. (See Avery Dennison
     Corp. v. Jerry Sumpton, D.C. Case No. CV-97-00407-JSL,
     Appeal No. 98-55810; General Machine Products Co., Inc
     v. Prime Domains NAF 0001000092531 re: craftwork.com,
     and Allocation Network GbmH v Steve Gregory, WIPO Case
     D2000-0016 re: allocation.com.) 

     "Which leads to the issue of Mail.com's status in this
     proceeding. Respondents offered proof that Spencer sold
     the domain name to a party with a legitimate,
     non-infringing interest in the name. Mail.com provided
     evidence from 1997 - three years before this dispute -
     of plans to use the domain name as a vanity email
     address. Complainant Hearst offered no evidence or
     argumentation to challenge the intent or validity of
     this transaction. The Avery Dennison v. Sumpton
     precedent is directly applicable to this case, as the
     ruling specifically upholds the right of a domain name
     registrant to resell use of a domain name as a vanity
     address even when the character string of the second
     level domain name corresponds to someone's trademark.

     "I emphatically dissent from the majority opinion's
     statement that Mail.com's rights "are subject to
     whatever defects Spencer's claim may face." I find
     their contention that a subsequent permissible use
     cannot be considered as an important factor in this
     case to be insupportable. The majority panelists have
     decided - without any direct evidence - that Spencer's
     sole original intent was to sell the name to Esquire
     Magazine. When faced with the clear fact that Spencer
     sold the name to someone else, they say that this sale
     is invalid because of Spencer's imputed original
     intent. The argument is entirely circular, and has no

     "The UDRP is intended to prevent trademark owners from
     being extorted by cybersquatters, but it is also
     intended to protect legitimate registrations from being
     threatened by overreaching trademark owners. A correct
     application of the spirit and letter of the UDRP gives
     each of these concerns equal weight. The majority
     opinion fails to balance these concerns. Absent any
     evidence that the original registrant was trading
     specifically on the value of the Esquire Magazine mark,
     I cannot conclude that the name was registered in bad

CPT Comment:

1.   The Esquire.com decision should not have overlooked evidence
     of proposed legitimate uses of the Esquire.com domain name. 
     In this, case, as a domain for personal email addresses. 
     The registration of a trademark for the word Esquire in
     connection with the magazine does not prevent others from
     using the word Esquire for other legitimate uses, including,
     for example, as a personal email address.  

2.   If ICANN would expand the TLD space, to include such TLDs as
     magazine or even .esquire, it would not be necessary to
     choose between the use of Esquire as a personsal email
     domain and the name for the magazine publisher.  

6.   Walmartcanadasucks.com


This is a decision that gave "walmartcanadasucks.com",
"wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com",
"walmartpuertorico.com" and "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" to
Walmart.  The decision said:

     Based on its finding that the Respondents, Walsucks and
     Walmarket Puerto Rico, have engaged in abusive
     registration of the domain names
     "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "wal-martcanadasucks.com",
     "walmartuksucks.com", "walmartpuertorico.com" and
     "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" within the meaning of
     paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel orders that the
     domain names "wal-martcanadasucks.com",
     "wal-martcanadasucks.com", "walmartuksucks.com",
     "walmartpuertorico.com" and
     "walmartpuertoricosucks.com" be transferred to the
     Complainant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


These domains were owned by Kenneth J. Harvey, a speculator in
domain names.  

Acccording to the decision:

       The "walmartcanadasucks.com" and "walmartuksucks.com" web
pages each state that "This is a freedom of information site set
up for dissatisfied Walmart Canada [or UK, respectively]
customers." Each site invites visitors to "Spill Your Guts" with
a "horror story relating to your dealings with Wal-Mart Canada
[or UK, respectively]". On the "walmartcanadasucks.com" website,
Respondent has posted "Wal-Mart Horror Story #1" which recounts
his version of events in respect to the "walmartcanada.com"
domain name. Each website posts a photograph of Respondent,
labeled "President", and Respondent's biography. Each "Spill
Your Guts" page indicates "If we feel your story is interesting,
it might be included in award-winning author Kenneth J. Harvey's
forthcoming book - "Wal-MartCanadaSucks.com" [or, on UK page,
"about Walmart"]". 

Walmark indicated these domains were registered in bad faith, and

     Respondents' free speech argument is a convenient and
     transparent dodge. It does not even make sense with
     respect to three of the domain names:
     and WALMARTPUERTORICO.COM. There are no websites
     attached to these domain names. Respondents offer no
     evidence to support a claim that they have made
     legitimate use of any of these three domain names. 

The arbitrator indicated:

     Respondent has appended the term "-sucks" to domain
     names that are, in the absence of that term,
     confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. The addition
     of the pejorative verb "sucks" is tantamount to
     creating the phrase "Wal-Mart Canada sucks" (and
     comparable phrases with Respondent's other "-sucks"
     formative domain names). The elimination of the spacing
     between the terms of the phrase is dictated by
     technical factors, and by the common practice of domain
     name registrants. The addition of a common or generic
     term following a trademark does not create a new or
     different mark in which Respondent has rights.

The decision noted that:    

     Respondent argues that addition of the word "sucks" to
     the base names "walmartcanada", "wal-martcanada",
     "walmartuk" and "walmartpuertorico" causes such names
     to lose their confusing similarity with Complainant's
     "Wal-Mart" trademark. Respondent contends that because
     an Internet user or consumer viewing a "-sucks"
     formative domain name would assume that Complainant is
     not the sponsor of or associated with a website
     identified by such address, Respondent's "-sucks"
     formative marks cannot be confusingly similar to
     Complainant's mark.

     In support of this argument, Respondent refers to
     Lucent Technologies, Inc., v. Lucentsucks.com, 95 F.
     Supp. 2d 528 (E.D.Vir. 2000). It is first important to
     note that the observations made by Judge Brinkema in
     the Lucentsucks.com opinion regarding the issue of
     confusing similarity are in the nature of dicta, since
     the court dismissed the action against defendant for
     lack of jurisdiction 10. Judge Brinkema's opinion in
     Lucentsucks.com, and one decision on which she relies,
     Bally Total Fitness v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D.
     Cal. 1998), each lend some support to Respondent's
     position. However, both cases are distinguishable.

This defense was rejected, however, and the WIPO panel found on
behalf of Walmart, that various "sucks" domains were "confusingly
similiar" to the Walmart trademarks.

     In Bally, the court granted summary judgment in favor
     of a defendant that used the "Bally" trademark on a web
     page, appending the word "sucks", to create a
     "ballysucks" web page. In that case, "ballysucks.com"
     was not registered and was not used as a second-level
     domain name. The principal issue was whether the
     defendant could lawfully express itself on its web page
     using the trademark "Bally" in combination with the
     word "sucks". The court held that since the
     "ballysucks" web page was devoted to critical
     commentary regarding Bally, and the defendant did not
     have a commercial purpose in maintaining the site, the
     defendant had a valid free speech interest in using
     Bally's mark.

     The court observed that even a "ballysucks.com" domain
     name might not constitute trademark infringement ("even
     if Faber did use the mark as part of a larger domain
     name, such as "ballysucks.com", this would not
     necessarily be a violation as a matter of law." 29 F.
     Supp., at 1165). It made this observation in the
     context of applying the Sleekcraft factors. In Bally,
     the court found the defendant's intent in establishing
     its "ballysucks" web page was to criticize the
     trademark holder, and this factor weighed heavily in
     favor of the defendant. In the present proceeding,
     Respondent's intent is different.

     In Lucentsucks.com, the court observed that "Defendant
     argues persuasively that the average consumer would not
     confuse lucentsucks.com with a web site sponsored by
     plaintiff" 11 . However, the court did not undertake
     any particularized analysis of the disputed domain name
     as compared with the plaintiff's trademark. Moreover,
     the court observed that: "A successful showing that
     lucentsucks.com is effective parody and/ or a cite
     [sic] for critical commentary would seriously undermine
     the requisite elements for the causes of action at
     issue in this case." 12 No such showing had been made
     by the defendant in Lucentsucks.com. The court was
     speaking in the abstract - and in dicta -- about a
     future case in which the trademark issues would be
     fully litigated. Even so, the court indicated that the
     defendant's intent in registering and using the
     disputed domain name would be an important element in
     determining whether cybersquatting had occurred. The
     Panel does not consider Lucentsucks.com to stand for
     the proposition that "-sucks" formative domain names
     are immune as a matter of law from scrutiny as being
     confusingly similar to trademarks to which they are
     appended. Each case must be considered on its merits.

     The Panel is not making any determination regarding the
     registrants and users of other "-sucks" formative
     domain names (such as "walmartsucks.com"). The record
     of this proceeding evidences that Respondent did not
     register "walmartcanadasucks.com" and his other
     "-sucks" names in order to express opinions or to seek
     the expression of opinion of others. The record
     indicates that his intention was to extract money from
     Complainant. An application of the Sleekcraft factors
     in another context involving Complainant's mark and the
     word "sucks" might produce a different result than that
     reached here. The Panel notes that use of a domain name
     confusingly similar to a mark may be justified by fair
     use or legitimate noncommercial use considerations, and
     that this may in other cases permit the use of "-sucks"
     formative names in free expression forums. 

     Complainant has met the burden of proving that
     Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are
     identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in
     which Complainant has rights, and it has thus
     established the first of the three elements necessary
     to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive
     domain name registration.

CPT Comment:

1.   Domain names with a trademark plus the term "sucks" are not
     confusingly similar to trademark.  The term "sucks" is
     clearly a pejorative term, used for criticism and free
     speech.  ICANN should not be in the business of preventing
     people from creating various "sucks" web pages.

7.   Catmachines.com


Roam the Planet had registered catmachines.com.  Caterpillar was
successful in taking catmachines.com away from Roam the Planet. 
According to the WIPO decision, Caterpillar had sales of $19
billion in 1999.  (Bulldozers and other products).  Caterpillar
already had registered caterpillar.com and cat.com.  It claimed
that "catmachines" was  "identical, or confusingly similar" to
its trademark in caterpillar or cat.  

Roam the Planet, apparently a seller of domain names, complained
that Caterpillar was engaged in "Reverse domain highjacking." 
Roam the Planet identified.

     "numerous legitimate domain uses" for a domain
     combining "cat" with "machines", such as CAT for
     Computer Aided Technologies, Cat (the animal)
     associated with machines (e.g. Littermaid), Category 5,
     CATscan, Center for Advanced Technology (CAT), Computed
     Axial Tomography (C.A.T.), Covert Action Teams (C.A.T.)
     and Catalog (abbreviation). 

Apparently undermining its case was the fact that Roam the Planet
had tried to sell catmachines.com to Caterpillar for $9,000. 
WIPO transfered catmachines.com to Caterpillar.  Interestingly,
WIPO did not note that the domain catmachine.com is in use now,
by a firm that designs web pages.  

CPT Comment:

1.   Catmachines.com is not "identical or confusingly similar" to
     caterpillar.   The owner the domain name did demonstrate
     that there were legitimate uses for the domain other than
     the one proposed by Caterpillar.  

2.   Ironically, the WIPO decision to give Caterpillar the domain
     catmachines.com creates a possible dispute involving the
     domain catmachine.com, which is clearly a bona fide use by
     someone other than Caterpillar.  

8.   Eurotrash.com


According to this URL, the current user of Eurotrash.com claims
to have incurred expenses of more than $40 thousand to defend its
domain names.  

CPT Comment:

1.   This raises some questions about the costs imposed on domain
     name holders.  

2.   Eurotrash is a common slang term.  I don't see how anyone
     could claim a "right" to use this in the .com space.

9.   Scientologie.org

    Religious Technology Center v. Freie Zone E. V

This is an interesting and complex dispute involving on the one
hand, a group that owned the copyright to a book named
Scientologie, and a religious organization that claimed a
trademark on the word scientologie.  The current domain name
holder uses the domain to criticize the Church of Scientology,
the owner of the trademark for Scientologie.   WIPO rejected the
request for a transfer, noting that the domain name holder's
interest in criticizing the Church of Scientology was a
legitimate use.  

CPT Comment:

1.   The decision in the scientologie.org case was correct, and a
     good illustration of the need to protect the public's right
     to free speech and criticism.  

10.  bridgestone-firestone.net


Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research,
Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers

This is an important decision where WIPO upheld the right of a
person to use bridgestone-firestone.net to criticize Bridgestone
Firestone, which owned the domain bridgestone-firestone.com.

The panel decision said:

     The question presented in this case is whether fair use
     and free speech are defenses to a claim for transfer of
     a domain name under the Policy. Under Paragraph 4
     (c)(iii) of the Policy, noncommercial fair use is
     expressly made a defense, as noted above. Although free
     speech is not listed as one of the Policy's examples of
     a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, the
     list is not exclusive, and the Panel concludes that the
     exercise of free speech for criticism and commentary
     also demonstrates a right or legitimate interest in the
     domain name under Paragraph 4 (c)(iii). The Internet is
     above all a framework for global communication, and the
     right to free speech should be one of the foundations
     of Internet law.

     . . . 

     For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides
     that although the Domain Name registered by Respondent
     is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks
     in which the Complainants have rights, the Respondent
     has legitimate fair use and free speech rights and
     interests in respect of the Domain Name, and the
     Respondent has not registered and used the Domain Name
     in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the claim of
     the Complainants for transfer of the Domain Name.
CPT Comment:

1.   The panel decision was correct in affirming that criticism
     of a firm is a legitimate basis for using the company name
     in a domain name.  

11.  Evidence of Non-Confusion between .com, .net and .org

There are many WIPO UDRP decisions that take away .org, or .net
sites because they are considered confusingly similar to existing
.com sites.  There are also .com sites taken away because they
are considered similar to .org site.  The following examples
illustrate the these decisions are not necessary, and that the
same name can be used by different organizations using different

abc.com   ABC Television
abc.org   American Builders and Contractors

nbc.com   NBC Television
nbc.org   Northport Baptist Church

Yale.com -- Yale Industrial Trucks
Yale.edu -  Yale University

blue.com   Blue Hypermedia
Blue.org   Blue Dot
Blue.net   Bluegrass Cellular Internet Services

watch.com    National Watch Exchange
watch.org    Koenig's International News: WorldWatchDaily
watch.net    i2x Media

Internet.com   The Internet Industry Portal
Internet.net   Internet Shopping Network

fish.com     A personal web page
fish.org     Discussion of fisheries management

car.org   California Association of Realtor
car.net   Car.Net  An automobile portal

cpa.com    Ralphael & Associates, accountants
cpt.net    Dietrich and Wilson, accountants 

mpaa.net   Michigan Patent Accounting Association
mpaa.org   Motion Picture Association of America

WTO.com    Wolf Technologies Online
wto.int    World Trade Organization

baseball.com   Baseball.com baseball portal
baseball.net   Baseball shopping network
baseball.org   Tribute to Erich Maria Remarque

att.com         AT&T Global Network Services
att.net         AT&T Worldnet Service
att.org         Associated Talmud Torahs