It's words on a screen. You, I, or anyone else can disagree with them.
In a domain dispute with Segway over a "segway.tld" domain name, Segway is going to win.
In the context of this forum, where it is obvious that there is no shortage of folks who have the first clue what they are talking about, it isn't particularly helpful (in my opinion, with which you are free to disagree) to go on about absurd hypotheticals or improbable edge situations which aren't relevant to whether Segway needs a trademark registration in every country on earth in order to win that dispute.
For a question like:
...it is plainly obvious that winning a domain name dispute does not require a "globally recognized TM".
Hey, maybe your name is Joseph Segway, and you are using the name for your personal website. If so, great. But that is neither the question nor the facts here.
...which is also ill-informed, since the probable course will be for Segway to apply to cancel that registration, as they have done successfully in quite a few countries in which people have tried that.
But, in point of fact, they wouldn't even have to do that since it's been registered in China since 2002:
App/Reg No
3193591
Nice Class
9
Filling Date
2002-05-30
Registered Date
2003-08-07
Protection Term
2013-08-07--2023-08-06
Current Status
Renewal finished
Owner's Name
SEGWAY INC.赛格威公司
Owner's Address
14 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE,BEDFORD,NH 03110,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA美国新罕布什尔州贝德福德市技术路14号
They have six other "SEGWAY" marks registered there, in addition to that one.
You certainly have the "right" to say that Segway doesn't have trademark registrations in China. The facts are that they have a bunch of them.
Does running off to some obscure jurisdiction to obtain paper trademark rights work as a defense in domain disputes? No.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0822
One matter which has given the Panel cause for pause, is that the Respondent apparently still held a registered DURACELL Community Trademark, in respect of goods in International Classes 32 and 33, when the Complaint was filed. However, in Madonna Ciccone P/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel said:
“It would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy… To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered…”
Similarly, in Beca Inc v. CanAm Health Source Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0298, the panel confirmed that a UDRP panel can, in an appropriate case, question the legitimacy of a trademark relied upon by a respondent for the purpose of assessing that respondent’s bona fides under the UDRP. While the mere fact that a trademark has been applied for or obtained by a respondent may in appropriate cases be a highly relevant consideration, such fact of itself is not an absolute bar to a complainant succeeding in appropriate cases under the Policy.
The Madonna and Beca cases were followed by this Panel in Uponor Oyj and Uponor Innovation AB v. Iman G. Mohammadi, Network Supporters Co. Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2008-0209.
In this case, the available evidence shows that the Respondent, and others who may have been involved in marketing the “Duracell Energy Drink”, have been trading off the Complainant’s goodwill in its DURACELL mark. Indeed, the Respondent’s founder appears to have acknowledged as much in the statements which were attributed to him by the “www.hoteliermiddleeast.com” website. Such circumstances fall a long way short of demonstrating that the Respondent’s registration of the DURACELL Community Trademark was “obtained in good faith for the purpose of making a bona fide use of the mark” (to borrow from the language used by the panel in the Madonna case; although in that case the relevant trademark had been obtained in Tunisia as opposed to the Community TM registration at issue in the present dispute, the principle is apt). Furthermore, the Complainant has applied to invalidate the Respondent’s Community Trademark registration, and it appears that the Respondent has not opposed that application. Nor has the Respondent provided any answer to the Complainant’s bad faith allegations in this proceeding.
Yeah, you can. By the same token, if we are talking about a .com name for example, the TM claimant can bring a suit in Virginia, where the registry is located, and the Virginia court isn't going to care about your stalling suit elsewhere. That has been done multiple times before. Here's one example of that in action:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/250/610/2381296/
On April 9, 2002, Park filed an application for an injunction in the District Court of Seoul, Korea, requesting that court to issue an injunction prohibiting Hangang from transferring the domain name as ordered by this Court. The District Court of Seoul provisionally granted this injunction by order dated September 17, 2002, finding that this Court likely lacked jurisdiction over the matter.[11] In light of these proceedings and the Korean court's order, it appears that Hangang has refused to transfer the domain name as directed by Order of this Court. GlobalSantaFe, therefore, now seeks by motion a second amended judgment, which not only directs Hangang and VeriSign to transfer the domain name, but additionally directs Veri-Sign, the registry, to cancel the infringing domain name pursuant to the ACPA until the domain name is transferred to Global-SantaFe.
0
Bottom line: US court, where the registry is located, didn't give a sh*t about the Korean court order.
But the OP isn't asking about applying for trademark registrations in various places, litigating in slow jurisdictions, or other schemes which have been attempted and failed in relation to well-known marks.
You are certainly free to disagree as you see fit, and I'm just as free to respond as I see fit.
