Merely requiring a registry to offer a sunrise period is actually worse than the status quo given that trademark owners' defensive registration costs will skyrocket in direct proportion to the number of new TLDs introduced.   The URS was one way to avoid such costs.  But the URS as proposed by the IRT was only a partial solution unless trademark owners also have the right to request back the transfer of valuable domain names into their portfolio.   For such valuable domain names, trademark owners will face increased litigation costs to win back the names, or be placed in a perpetual monitoring situation, also increasing costs.  But, as Mike says, if the URS is a so-called "best practice," it will be mere window dressing and trademark owners will be left without any practical remedy.
 
 
Sarah

Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670
sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
 

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:20 AM
To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Liz Williams'; 'Zahid Jamil'; Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

Eager to hear opinions of Sarah or any other experts.  I have quite a lot of experience with that myself, of course.

 

Also, I’ve realized just now that the IRT itself did NOT recommend that all domain registrations be checked against the Clearinghouse database, so long as the registry enacts a sunrise perios, and so the URS is enacted and mandatory.  Thus Staff has not watered down that aspect of the proposal, except that they have proposed that the URS be denominated a ‘best practice’ rather than a mandatory requirement.  I strongly believe that both elements must be mandatory, and urge that as the BC position.  Obviously, allowing registries to offer only a sunrise period, and no other RPMs for trademark owners, is no improvement whatsoever over the previous rollouts of TLDs.

 

Of course it will be very difficult to get consensus to something even more stringent than recommended by the IRT, but I think we need to try.  A fallback option is to require registries to do Clearinghouse lookups, and provide URS, in order to get the new ‘high security zone’ designation.  But my gut feel on that initiative is that it is worthless, few registrants will care, thus few contract parties will care.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

 

 

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:58 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Liz Williams; Zahid Jamil; Sarah Deutsch
Cc: bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

 

Have the actual brand holders from large BC members agreed with that perspective? I've added Sarah, who is an expert on these issues -- I think that there was a few that there needed to be a number of safeguards, not only one or two. 

 




From: icann@rodenbaugh.com
To: lizawilliams@mac.com; zahid@dndrc.com
CC: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:53:10 -0700

Thanks Zahid.  Just want to note my strong opinion that, if the Clearinghouse must be checked against every domain registrations, with conflicts resulting in notice to the applicant, and the URS is mandatory for all new TLD registries, then I believe there will be sufficient protections such that TM owners will not be forced to defensively register their marks.  Interested to hear if anyone has a different view, and their reasoning, as I expect the BC will develop a position statement that includes these key points.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

(415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:54 PM
To: Zahid Jamil
Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: Re: Scoop on TM Rights Protection in new gTLDs - RE: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

 

Zahid

 

Thanks very much for this analysis.  It is always disturbing when months of community time and organisational resources are of questionable value.  It also points again to the difficulty of trying to do what is essentially policy development outside of the normal policy development channels but that is a debate for another day.

 

However, what is your suggestion for a way forward?  You make a "scream about it" note at the end but that most likely won't be very productive.  It seems to be that the Board is going to be required to be the final decision maker given it is highly unlikely that the Council will reach consensus -- given that lack of consensus was the whole reason why the IRT was established anyway.

 

Following Ron's request for items for tonight's meeting, I suggest that the strategy forward is the subject of tonight's huddle at 6pm in the bar.  Gin and tonic will be required!

 

Liz

On 25 Oct 2009, at 02:10, Zahid Jamil wrote:

 

This document was prepared for a meeting held yesterday between the IRT and Staff (Kurt, Dan) and a Board Member (Bruce).

 

Here are some points that may interest members:

 

The outcome from Staff in the DAG3 (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm) and those mentioned on

for Rights Protection Mechanism (http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#prpm-new-gtlds -difficult to find on the website and not connected to the DAG3’s website) DO NOT REFLCT the IRT Recommendations.

 

It seems that the Staff has completely reengineered the solutions.   To a large extent even though the title of the solution may be the same but the contents are effectively not what the IRT recommended.

 

So to give members a feel of the process and what Staff acknowledged in yesterday’s meeting:

 

Focusing on 5 Solutions:

1.       Reserved List (GPML)

2.       Central IP Database (IP Clearinghouse)

3.       Rapid Suspension (URSS)

4.       Rights holders right to take a Registry through a Dispute Resolution after the gTLD is launched (Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure PDDRP)

5.       Thick Whois

 

Eg. 1 - So for instance, in regards PDDRP:

 

There were no comments from the community

The Board agreed at the higher level to a PDDRP

 

In my view this would have mean that Staff would go ahead and incorporate the IRT solution (maybe just maybe filling in some holes) into DAG3 or the Rights Protection Mechanism.  This wasn’t the case.

 

Instead the staff completely changed the PDDRP (see Jeff Neuman’s article http://www.circleid.com/members/2921/ )

 

So as I put in the meeting yesterday Staff swapped the cards on the IRT, the community, and the Board!

 

(But since this was too tricky they didn’t let this go to the GNSO)

 

In short the IRT had recommended that:

 

Standard for Asserting a Claim – 3

types:

(a) The Registry Operator’s manner

of operation or use of a TLD is

inconsistent with the

representations made in the TLD

application as approved by

ICANN and incorporated into the

applicable Registry Agreement

and such operation or use of the

TLD is likely to cause confusion

with the complainant’s mark; or

(b) The Registry Operator is in

breach of the specific rights

protection mechanisms

enumerated in such Registry

Operator’s Agreement and such

breach is likely to cause

confusion with complainant’s

mark; or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c) The Registry Operator manner of operation or use of the TLD exhibits a bad faith intent to profit from the systemic registration of domain name registrations therein, which are identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, meeting any of the following conditions: (i) taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of

the complainant’s mark, or (ii) unjustifiably impairing the distinctive character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (iii) creating an impermissible likelihood of

confusion with Complainant’s mark.

 

 

For a Registry Operator to be liable for toplevel

infringement, a complainant must assert

and prove by clear and convincing evidence

that the Registry Operator’s affirmative

conduct in its operation or use of its gTLD, that is identical or confusingly similar to the

complainant’s mark, causes or materially

contributes to the gTLD: (a) taking unfair

advantage of the distinctive character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (b)

unjustifiably impairing the distinctive character

or the reputation of the complainant’s mark, or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(c) creating an impermissible likelihood of

confusion with the complainant’s mark.

For a Registry Operator to be liable for the

conduct at the second level, the complainant

must assert and prove by clear and convincing

evidence:

 

(a) that there is substantial ongoing

pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent

by the registry operator to profit from the sale

of trademark infringing domain names; and

 

 

 

(b) of the registry operator’s bad faith intent to profit from the systematic registration of

domain names within the gTLD, that are

identical or confusingly similar to the

complainant’s mark, which: (i) takes unfair

advantage of the distinctive character or the

reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (ii)

unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant’s mark, or (iii) creates an impermissible likelihood of

confusion with the complainant’s mark. In this

regard, it would not be nearly enough to show

that the registry operator was on notice of

possible of trademark infringement through

registrations in the gTLD.

 

So basically if a Rights holder or a community that doesn’t object at the application stage since the representations in the Application and the Registry Agreement seem fine has no recourse subsequently to assert and challenge in case there is a breach of the Registry Agreement or those representations in the application.

 

ICANN staff’s response was:  we will independently deal with enforcement brought to our notice.  Basically trust us to enforce Registry contracts.

 

 

Eg. 2 - In regards the URSS:

ICANN staff has changed the Rapid Suspension from MANDATORY to BEST PRACTICE

 

Also delinked URSS from the GPML and Clearing House “The Guidebook proposal does not mention a pre‐registration process utilizing the Clearinghouse”

 

And since the Board was advised that this seems more like Policy the Board has sent a letter to the GNSO to either:

 

a) approve the staff model (details of which can be found here http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtlds/gnso‐consultations‐reports‐en.htm), which is an assimilation of the IRT work and Board concerns), or

b) propose an alternative that is equivalent or more effective and implementable.

 

A six weeks window has been allowed.

 

This basically means that if GNSO cannot reach consensus then Staff Model is likely to go through

 

 

The IRT proposals thus have been side tracked and swapped.

 

 

Example 3 – Reserved List (GPML)

It’s just gone – Staff had said that they would complete their research (about strongest global brands- get data about global brands and see how many countries these brands are registered in) and then come back – but the GPML was just removed – no explanation and without completing this study.

SO NO RESERVED LIST – AND NO SOLUTION TO DEFENSIVE REGISTRATIONS!

 

 

Generally:

 

In response to protestations Kurt said in regards some aspects ‘you’re preaching to the converted’  and generally said ‘go ahead and scream about it’ – basically do what the Non commercials are doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:19 AM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

 

Further fyi, re STI (“Specified TM Issues”).

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

548 Market Street

San Francisco, CA  94104

http://rodenbaugh.com

From: owner-gnso-sti@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-sti@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 6:01 PM
To: Council GNSO; gnso-sti@icann.org
Subject: [Bulk] [gnso-sti] Draft Summary of Differences Between IRT Report and Applicant Guidebook Version 3

 

Dear All,

 

As we discussed yesterday,  attached is  a document that summarizes the key differences between the IRT and the Applicant Guidebook Version 3.   This matrix seeks to succinctly present areas of contrast and briefly explain the rationale for the differences.    Please review this draft  and let me know  whether there is any other information that should be included to facilitate the GNSO’s work on the Board request.

 

Best regards,

 

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN