Decreto Passigli- Italy vs. US

chiari mario chiari.hm a FLASHNET.IT
Sab 18 Nov 2000 16:22:22 CET


Rinvio le due mail che avevo spedito alla lista isco la scorsa estate. Le
credo ancora attuali. Questa è la prima. Opinioni welcome.
mario


*************************************************************
In merito alla discussione sul disegno Passigli
credo utile un commento comparato con la normativa USA,
[di cui ora non trovo più la url, ma che credo sia rintracciabile facilmente]


(Il testo USA non è di facile lettura, chiunque creda sia incorso in
fraintendimenti è invitato a correggermi. )

Due differenze saltano agli occhi:


1-
Ps- Il disegno Passigli, art. 1,  "vieta [...] l'utilizzazione" di cinque
classi di espressioni  "per l'identificazione  di domini";
US- La normativa  USA riconosce un diritto di azione civile a chi si sente
danneggiato da un uso in cattiva fede, per profitto, di espressioni
confondibili con marchi o nomi di persona:

"person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including
a personal name [...], if, [...]
`(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, [...]; and
`(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that-[...]".

(per il testo completo vedi sotto. Nota anche la sezione (b)(1)(A) per il
caso dei nomi di persona)


La differenza non mi sembra nominale. Benchè ambedue le norme possano
essere giustificate come dispositivi di tutela di un interesse legittimo,
la norma US pone l'onere della prova   di un danno nella persona che si
considera danneggiata, ed evita un divieto generalizzato.

Come già notato da molti il disegno Passigli estende inoltre la proibizione
a casi in cui non è chiaro quale interesse è tutelato. Comparativamente, le
clausole
del disegno Passigli coprono molti più casi, sono più vaghe e più ambigue.

2- La norma USA non identifica nessun ente specifico come unico ente di
registrazione (o Anagrafe, secondo la pessima terminologia adottata dal
disegno Passigli).

(La norma USA precisa che soltanto le responsabilità "de rem" dell'ente
registratore nel caso, credo molto remoto, che non sia possibile
individuare chi ha in uso il nome.).

In conseguneza non dice nulla sui poteri dell' ente (o degli enti)
registratori, non indica chi decide le regole di registrazione, ecc., ecc..


Una osservazione finale:

3- Il disegno Passigli sembra ispirato da una concezione dei nomi come di
un bene pubblico da dare in uso o concessione. La norma USA sembra più
attenta a una concezione della scelta del nome di un dominio come
esercizio di un diritto fondamentale - in particolare l'esercizio  del
diritto fondamentale di libera espressione (si pensi al dominio come a una
testata o al titolo di un libro) -,  diritto che può avere limitazioni, se
queste sono scrupolosamente specificate.


Infine:

l'evolversi della situazione governativa dovrebbe darci qualche  giorno in
più per stilare una posizione condivisa di isoc.it sul disegno Passigli.

Purtroppo non siamo ancora a regime, e dobbiamo - credo - adottare una
procedura d'urgenza - a norma di Statuto dovremmo mettere in piedi tutto il
meccanismo dell'art. 7. La mia idea è semplice. Entro la prima metà della
settimana dopo Pasqua il Consiglio (= io materialmente?) dovrebbe elaborare
un testo che riassuma i punti condivisi della discussione in ml, lo
approviamo tutti in ml e lo adottiamo come opinione di isoc.it. Se siamo
ampiamente in accordo, questo dovrebbe essere una procedura corretta -
anche se non strettamente in accordo con lo Statuto - per arrivare a un
risultato.

Io sono in rete anche domani, poi in vacanza.


a presto mario

ps Alcuni soci hanno promesso di produrre nella pausa delle vacanza
pasquali i promessi contributi. Una parola è poco, due sono troppo.







SEC. 3002. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is
amended by inserting at the end the following:
`(d)(1)(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a
mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this
section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that
person--
`(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal
name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
`(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
`(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration
of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
`(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of
registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or
dilutive of that mark; or
`(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of
title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States
Code.
`(B)(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described
under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not
limited to--
`(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if
any, in the domain name;
`(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the
person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
`(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection
with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
`(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a
site accessible under the domain name;
`(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online
location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the
goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the
intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of
confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
site;
`(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain
name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having
used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering
of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a
pattern of such conduct;
`(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact
information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the
person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or
the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
`(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names
which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of
others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain
names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of
registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services
of the parties; and
`(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name
registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of
subsection (c)(1) of section 43.
`(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found
in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had
reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair
use or otherwise lawful.
`(C) In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of
a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or
cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the
owner of the mark.
`(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph
(A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's
authorized licensee.
`(E) As used in this paragraph, the term `traffics in' refers to
transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans,
pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for
consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
`(2)(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a
domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar,
domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or
assigned the domain name is located if--
`(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered
in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or
(c); and
`(ii) the court finds that the owner--
`(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would
have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
`(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have
been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
`(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under
this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and
e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
`(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly
after filing the action.
`(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of
process.
`(C) In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be
deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
`(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority
that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
`(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the
disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited
with the court.
`(D)(i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be
limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain
name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon
receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint
filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this
paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain
name authority shall--
`(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish
the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the
registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
`(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the
pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
`(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority
shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph
except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a
willful failure to comply with any such court order.
`(3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action
established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such
action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise
applicable.
`(4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in
addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or
in personam.'.
(b) CYBERPIRACY PROTECTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS-
(1) IN GENERAL-
(A) CIVIL LIABILITY- Any person who registers a domain name that consists
of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and
confusingly similar thereto, without that person's consent, with the
specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for
financial gain to that person or any third party, shall be liable in a
civil action by such person.
(B) EXCEPTION- A person who in good faith registers a domain name
consisting of the name of another living person, or a name substantially
and confusingly similar thereto, shall not be liable under this paragraph
if such name is used in, affiliated with, or related to a work of
authorship protected under title 17, United States Code, including a work
made for hire as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code,
and if the person registering the domain name is the copyright owner or
licensee of the work, the person intends to sell the domain name in
conjunction with the lawful exploitation of the work, and such registration
is not prohibited by a contract between the registrant and the named
person. The exception under this subparagraph shall apply only to a civil
action brought under paragraph (1) and shall in no manner limit the
protections afforded under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et
seq.) or other provision of Federal or State law.
(2) REMEDIES- In any civil action brought under paragraph (1), a court may
award injunctive relief, including the forfeiture or cancellation of the
domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the plaintiff. The court
may also, in its discretion, award costs and attorneys fees to the
prevailing party.
(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `domain name' has the meaning
given that term in section 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1127).
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- This subsection shall apply to domain names registered
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.



Maggiori informazioni sulla lista ita-pe