Search

Since Cyberspace has emerged, a new phenomenon, among other things, has shaped the relationship of the digital community's stakeholders. In this regard, the relationship between the two leading digital community's stakeholders (domain name owners and trademarks' holders) has been described more often than not as unstapled and conflicting relations over potential interests, profits, and commercial dignity of brands. At the early time of the digital revolution, the spider web was a double edge sword on both sides of commercial and legal technical aspects. One of these challenges was domain names' Cybersquatting. With the absence of legal organizing rules, the main obstacles are present in unclarity of the legal nature of domain names' Cybersquatting, at least at the early time of Cybersquatting demonstration as legal cases problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though the main goal of (TRIPS) agreement was established to organize Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, some new rights related to intellectual property have arisen away from the scope of this agreement. One of these issues was domain names. Initially, it was argued that there is no relation between domain names and trips agreement due to the fact that domain names are relatively new issue comparing to establishment of TRIPS agreement. This might be right to a point with taking into consideration the unclear nature of domain names per se. However, revealing the real nature of domain names might bollix things up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aimed to explore the theoretical grounds for the provision of trademark protection based on the dilution theory and economic-social planning theory with shedding a light on famous, non-famous and luxury trademarks. Based on the economic-social-planning theory, it's necessary to protect all trademarks because there are economic and social benefits derived from providing such protection. Such benefits include: saving the searching cost incurred by the customer for searching for products that meet their needs. The study concluded that the counterfeited non-famous trademarks can be protected by the customer confusion's calming. According to that study it can be concluded that trademark owner shall claim that customers will not be able to distinguish between the product of the original non-famous trademark and product of the fake trademark in case that the famous trademarks are counterfeited, it can be protected by dilution's claiming, but not confusion due to the fact the customers can distinguish between the product of the original famous trademark and the fake one. However, the owner must prove that the trademark is famous. Luxury trademarks can be protected through anti-dilution protection methods by default. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]