Executive Summary

Paragraph Numbers
1. The Mandate and Its Context	1 to 53
WIPO’s Prior Work	3 to 12
The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for gTLDs	8 to 12
Existing and Ongoing Discussions	13 to 44
UDRP Review	14 to 17
ccTLDs	18 to 21
“Internationalized” Domain Names	22 to 27
New gTLDs	28 to 35
A Unique, Authoritative Root	36 to 39
Internet Keywords	40 to 44
The Process of Consultations in the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process	45 to 52
The Submission of the Present Report	53

2. Policy Options for a Global Medium	54 to 80
Special Features of the Environment	58 to 64
A Global Medium	59
A Global Space	60
Speed of Penetration and of Change	61 to 63
Multifunctionality	64
Creating -v- Applying Law	65 to 67
Options for Intellectual Property Policy	68 to 80
Self-Regulation	69 to 72
The ICANN Contractual Model	73 to 76
The Treaty	77 to 80

3. International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical Substances	81 to 124
The INN System	87 to 92
The Policies Underlying the INN System	93
Evidence of Registrations of INNs in the DNS	94 to 95
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	96 to 107
Analysis of Views Expressed on Means of Implementing Protection	108 to 115
Exclusion Mechanism	109 to 111
Modified UDRP	112
Notice and Take-down Procedure	113 to 115
Recommendation	116 to 124

4. Names of International Intergovernmental Organizations	125 to 168
Existing International Protection	128 to 137
Scope of Existing International Protection	138
The .int Top-Level Domain	139 to 144
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	145 to 150
Analysis of Views Expressed on Means of Implementing Protection	151 to 157
Exclusion Mechanism	152 to 154
Modification of the UDRP	155 to 157
Recommendation	158 to 168

4. Names of International Intergovernmental Organizations	125 to 168
Existing International Protection	128 to 137
Scope of Existing International Protection	138
The .int Top-Level Domain	139 to 144
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	145 to 150
Analysis of Views Expressed on Means of Implementing Protection	151 to 157
Exclusion Mechanism	152 to 154
Modification of the UDRP	155 to 157
Recommendation	158 to 168

6. Geographical Identifiers	205 to 297
The Legal Protection of Geographical Identifiers	206 to 209
The Main Elements of the International Framework of Protection	210 to 222
The Prohibition of False Indications of Source	211 to 215
Geographical Indications	216 to 222
Evidence of the Misuse of Geographical Indications in the DNS	223 to 228
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	229 to 236
Recommendation	237 to 245
Preferences and Protection for Geographical Terms Per Se	246 to 248
Illustrations of the Registration of Geographical Terms within the DNS	249 to 263
Country Names	250 to 253
ISO 3166 Country Code Elements	254 to 255
Names of Places Within Countries	256 to 261
Names of Indigenous Peoples	262 to 263
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	264 to 270
Country Names and Names of Places Within Countries	264 to 267
ISO 3166 Country Code Elements	268 to 269
Names of Indigenous Peoples	270
Recommendation	271 to 297
Country Names and Names of Places Within Countries	271 to 289
ISO 3166 Alpha-2 Country Code Elements	290 to 295
Names of Indigenous Peoples	296 to 297

7. Trade Names	298 to 320
The International Protection of Trade Names	300 to 302
National Protection of Trade Names	303 to 305
Protection of Trade Names in the DNS	306 to 309
Analysis of Comments and Views Expressed in Response to the Interim Report	310 to 317
Recommendation	318 to 320

8. The Role of Technical Measures	321 to 348
The Whois Data Search Facilities	323 to 325
Comprehensive Whois Search Facilities	326 to 337
Whois Search Facilities Across ccTLDs	338 to 340
Privacy Implications of Extended Whois Services	341 to 345
Directory and Gateway Services	346 to 348

* * * * *

Annexes

I. List of Governments, Organizations and Persons Participating and Submitting Formal Comments
II. Contracting Members of Pertinent International Intellectual Property Treaties
III. World Health Assembly Resolutions on Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances
IV. World Health Organization (WHO) Procedure for the Selection of International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical Substances
V. Indicative List of WIPO Cases Involving Personal Names Registered as Domain Names
VI. Studies submitted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) of INNs Registered as Domain Names
VII. International Registrations of Appellations of Origin Under the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration
VIII. Study Submitted by the F閐閞ation des syndicats de producteurs de Ch鈚eauneuf du Pape on Claimed Geographical Indications and Wine Varieties Registered as Domain Names
VIX. Examples Submitted by the Institut national des appellations d’origine (INAO) of Claimed Appellations of Origin Registered as Domain Names
X. Examples of Appellations of Origin Registered Under the Lisbon Agreement Registered as Domain Names
XI. Examples of Other Possible Geographical Indications Registered as Domain Names
XII. Examples of Names of Countries Registered as Domain Names
XIII. Examples of Names of Cities Registered as Domain Names
XIV. Examples of Names of Indigenous Peoples Registered as Domain Names
XV. WIPO Questionnaire on Trade Names and Summary of Responses

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process was initiated at the request of the Member States of WIPO.  It follows the first such WIPO Process, which investigated the interface between trademarks and Internet domain names, and recommended the establishment of a uniform dispute-resolution procedure to deal with disputes concerning the bad faith registration and use of trademarks as domain names, or “cybersquatting.”  The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which was adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a consequence of the first WIPO Process, has proven to be an efficient and cost-effective international mechanism, responsive to the particular circumstances of the domain name system (DNS) as a global addressing system.  The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, as a leading provider of services under the UDRP, has received, at the date of publication of this Report, over 3000 complaints under it, of which well over 80% have been resolved.

The Second WIPO Process concerns a range of identifiers other than trademarks and is directed at examining the bad faith and misleading registration and use of those identifiers as domain names.  These other identifiers, which form the basis of naming systems used in the real or physical world, are:

- International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical substances, a consensus-based naming system used in the health sector to establish generic names for pharmaceutical substances that are free from private rights of property or control;

- The names and acronyms of international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs);

- Personal names;

- Geographical identifiers, such as indications of geographical source used on goods, geographical indications, and other geographical terms;

- Trade names, which are the names used by enterprises to identify themselves.

The international legal framework for the protection of these other identifiers is not as developed as it is for the protection of trademarks.  In some cases, for example, geographical indications and trade names, elements of international protection exist, but they do not constitute a complete system that is uniformly applied throughout the world.  In other cases, for example, personal names and the names of geographical localities, such as cities, used outside the context of trade in goods, there are no clear elements of an international framework. 

The Report finds that there is considerable evidence of the registration and use of the identifiers examined in the Report as domain names by persons who might be considered not to be properly entitled to use the identifiers in question.  Moreover, it is clear from the comments received by WIPO in the process leading to the Report that the registration of these identifiers as domain names by such persons offends many sensitivities.  For example, many commentators considered that the registration as domain names of the names of eminent political, scientific or religious persons, or the names of countries, cities or indigenous peoples, by parties without any association with the persons, places or peoples concerned, was unacceptable.

The possibility of registering these identifiers as domain names is a consequence of the first-come, first-served, highly automated and efficient nature of the system used for domain name registration, which does not involve any screening of domain name applications.  That same system has also allowed the tremendous growth that has taken place in the use of the Internet, while acting as the means of preserving universal connectivity on the Internet.

While the sensitivities offended by the registration and use of the identifiers considered in this Report by unconnected parties must be acknowledged, the insufficiencies of the current international legal framework must also be recognized.  It is for the international community to decide whether it wishes to address any of these insufficiencies in order to establish an adequate legal basis to deal with the practices that might be considered to be unacceptable.  Chapter Two of the Report outlines the instruments at the disposal of the international community for this purpose.  These instruments include self-regulation, the deployment of the contractual system within the DNS that allows ICANN to ensure certain uniform rules with respect to domain name registries, registrars and registrants, and the more traditional instrument of the treaty.  These instruments are not exclusive, but can be used in combination.  Thus, the UDRP represents a deployment, through the contractual relations that make up the ICANN system, of established rules relating to trademark protection that have been developed in widely accepted treaties.  It will be for the international community to choose not only whether it wishes to make new rules to deal with any of the identifiers examined in this Report, but also how it may wish to develop such rules and implement them.

The specific findings and recommendations made with respect to the various identifiers examined in this Report are:

(i)      For INNs, which are examined in Chapter Three of the Report, it is recommended that a simple mechanism be established which would protect INNs against identical domain name registrations.  The mechanism would allow any interested party to notify WIPO that a domain name registration is identical to an INN, whereupon WIPO would, in conjunction with the World Health Organization (WHO), verify the exact similarity between the domain name and the INN and notify this to ICANN, which would, in turn, notify the registrar with which the registration was made that the domain name registration should be cancelled.

(ii)      For the names and acronyms of IGOs, which are examined in Chapter Four of the Report, it is recommended that States, as the constituents of IGOs, should work towards the establishment of an administrative dispute-resolution procedure, akin to the UDRP, where an IGO could bring a complaint that a domain name was the same or confusingly similar to the name or acronym of the IGO, that it has been registered without legal justification and that it is likely to create a misleading association between the holder of the domain name registration and the IGO in question. 

(iii)     For personal names, which are the subject of Chapter Five of the Report, it was found that there are no existing international norms dealing with their protection and that national legal systems provide for a wide diversity of legal approaches to their protection.

The sensitivities offended by the registration of personal names as domain names by parties unconnected with the persons in question is recognized, and it is suggested that the international community needs to decide whether it wishes to work towards some means of protection of personal names against their abusive registration as domain names.

(iv)     For geographical identifiers, which are dealt with in Chapter Six, it is recognized that certain norms exist at the international level which prohibit false and deceptive indications of geographical source on goods and which protect geographical indications, or the names of geographical localities with which goods having particular characteristics derived from that locality are associated.  However, these rules apply to trade in goods and may require some adaptation to deal with the perceived range of problems with the misuse of geographical indications in the DNS.  Furthermore, the lack of an international agreed list of geographical indications would pose significant problems for the application of the UDRP in this area because of the need to make difficult choices of applicable law.  It is suggested that the international framework in this area needs to be further advanced before an adequate solution is available to the misuse of geographical indications in the DNS.  As far as other geographical terms are concerned, the Report produces considerable evidence of the widespread registration of the names of countries, places within countries and indigenous peoples as domain names by persons unassociated with the countries, places or peoples.  However, these areas are not covered by existing international laws and a decision needs to be taken as to whether such laws ought to be developed.

(v)     For trade names, which are the subject of Chapter Seven, the situation is similar to that of geographical indications, insofar as certain international norms exist for the protection of trade names, but fundamental problems exist in identifying across differing national approaches what constitutes a protectable trade name, and consequently, in avoiding highly complex choices of applicable law on a global medium.  It is recommended that no action be taken in this area.