Whilst it is clear that previously abused names have a significant negative effect on Internet users, the proper course of action should have been to consult the GNSO. To-date, we do not know *what* kind of variation would be allowed, whether this includes typo-squatting, visual similarity or other systems that might be used to stifle freedom of speech.
I had expressed concerns on the trademark "variations" before, but it is okay that my minority view was not accepted. Now I want to speak loud against the 50 variations to include "translation" or "transliteration" of any mark although its "abuse" has been recorded in previous proceedings. There would be ridiculous results particularly where these marks are generic terms, like APPLE, SUN or DOVE. If taking into account the same or similar marks registered in different class and country (like Havana Club registered in both US and Cuba by different parties), 50 variations are simply opening a can of worm. Even if this is merely for sunrise and claims, the chaos would be unimagineable. Hong -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China