To avoid doubts: I have been approached and being informed that that there might be people out here that interpret “Outside of the female portion of population this brand is virtually unknown..” as QUALIFCATION rather than QUANTIFICATION! It’s meant as QUANTIFICATION. And I showed the COACH logo to three of my gym class buddies (Zumba, I am the only man) – NONE have ever seen it. In the EU – Latvia. Thanks, Alexander From: Alexander Schubert [mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin] Sent: Donnerstag, 15. August 2019 19:46 To: 'gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 - Well-Known Brands Dear Anne, You said: “I consider it to be a rather unfortunate truth that an application for a famous brand which is also a “generic” word is going to lose out in this new gTLD environment anyway. For example, ‘Coach’ lost in the 2012 round.” I think “.coach” is a PRIME example why we should exclude generic (dictionary) keyword-based gTLD applicants from invoking Spec 13! “Coach” is used primarily as a very generic keyword for consultants; but also a description for certain transports. And the “brand” Coach very obviously piggybacked exactly on the semantic value of the generic keyword “coach” – hence their logo is literally a “coach” (see their logo at logosmarken.com/coach-logo). Outside of the female portion of population this brand is virtually unknown, ESPECIALLY outside the U.S. and UK! I for example have never ever noticed it. If we were to ask a random 100 Million Chinese or Indians: I really can’t imagine that (outside of the tiny bubble of super rich) ANYBODY has EVERY hard about it in China or India. So here we had a “brand” that was drawing reputation from a well-established generic keyword (I personally call that “free-riding”) – virtually unknown to the general global population (other than fashion nerds with too much money) striving to BLOCK the ENTIRE namespace “.coach” for their own use! And THANKS GOD they lost out – because likely (as most of the luxury brands) they would NOT have made use of their namespace AT ALL – but the CURRENT operator managed to create a well-used environment for “coaches”; just copy paste site:.coach into google.com and see an ENOURMOUS variety of websites using .coach domain names like: * ici.coach (Institut de Coaching International, French) * lovemylife.coach * joininghands.coach (A LGBT Community coaching website) * pilot.coach (Consulting firm) * and the list goes on and on The Internet User now has the possibility to use .coach based domain names to get connected to coaches! And they have coach.com to connect to the handbags! ICANN has tasked ALAC with representing the interest of the Internet User. I do not detect ANY such activity by ALAC here – so let me (a new gTLD applicant) do THEIR job: It would have been a complete ASTRAL DISASTER for the “Internet User” AND for all “.coach” registrants if a “brand” had blocked .coach – even more when considering that from all luxury brand gTLDs more or less NONE is really actively in use (in marketing etc). So I have a really hard time why you claim that the “.coach” outcome is in ANY way, form or shape “unfortunate”. From the perspective of ICANN’s mission this is a GREAT SUCCESS STORY! Is there anybody in this circus who really believes that the Coach Luxury Brand should have been assigned “.coach” (then likely not using it AT ALL) – and that such assignment would have been in the “best interest of the Internet User”? Spec 13 is a great tool. And as long as brands do not “grab public land”: let them have Spec 13 gTLDs if their brands are non-generic (non-geo-name based)! For a small narrow defined pool of FAMOUS, GLOBALLY and WIDELY recognized brands (think Visa or Apple) we should allow generic term and geo-name-based gTLDs to invoke Spec 13 as well. But the hurdle should be really HIGH. Not just “some” brand. So Spec 13 needs a major redone. Thanks, Alexander From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:22 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Subject: FW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 - Well-Known Brands Accidentally failed to copy the list. From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:31 AM To: 'trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com' <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> >; alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 I consider it to be a rather unfortunate truth that an application for a famous brand which is also a “generic” word is going to lose out in this new gTLD environment anyway. For example, “Coach” lost in the 2012 round. I don’t know if they ended up paying big money for the “generic” or not. There is nothing that gives a famous brand priority over generic terms. Based on 2012, it’s the opposite. An improvement in this round would be to apply priority for registered marks that are well-known. Well-known marks get protection in almost all countries around the world even if not registered. Though I am doubtful we could develop sufficient consensus to change what happened in 2012 on that one. (RPMs were a “suite” of protective mechanisms involving various compromises.) I currently tell all my clients: Don’t adopt any marks with geo connotations and don’t adopt any marks with any possible “generic” interpretation. This is unfortunate since the geo names in particular actually give more attention to the regions and rivers that are named and that is good for tourism!. Maybe Work Track 5 is coming up with some standard Public Interest terms that could be adopted to accommodate governmental interests when regions and rivers are involved., (I don’t know cause I am not involved in Work Track 5 work.) Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:16 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 [EXTERNAL] _____ Alex, These applications are for trademarks, not generic terms, and at least VISA and DISCOVER are famous and well-known brand across the globe. You might even have one in your wallet. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Dear Marc, I might misinterpret your suggestion – but you are saying there are no generic term based applications such as “smart”, “visa” or “discovery” have a Spec 13 in their contract? (I checked these three – and they seem to have a Spec 13 in their contracts – I assume when checking all the other generic keyword based applications the same will occur). And well: You need to register with the TM Clearinghouse: easy thing to do; the hurdles for that are very low (I have done TMCH applications for trademarks). Plus I am taking about a “real brand” – albeit a small one. So a small shoe brand “SHANGHAI” will easily meet all requirements for a spec 13. In my mind – please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Alexander From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 14. August 2019 17:51 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Alexander, Please also note that Spec 13 does not require just “some trademark registration” and specifically excludes generic string TLDs. Christopher conveniently “forgot” to point out that Section 9.3 of Spec 13 requires: (i) the TLD string is identical to the textual elements protectable under applicable law, of a registered trademark valid under applicable law, which registered trademark: a. is recorded with, and issued a signed data mark file by, the Trademark Clearinghouse or any successor or alternative trademark validation authority appointed by ICANN, if such trademark meets the eligibility requirements of such validation authority (provided that Registry Operator is not required to maintain such recordation for more than one year); b. is owned and used by the Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the ordinary course of Registry Operator’s or its Affiliates’ business in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services claimed in the trademark registration; c. was issued to Registry Operator or its Affiliate prior to the filing of its TLD registry application with ICANN; d. is used throughout the Term continuously in the ordinary course of business of Registry Operator or its Affiliate in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services identified in the trademark registration; e. does not begin with a period or a dot; and f. is used by Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the conduct of one or more of its businesses that are unrelated to the provision of TLD Registry Services; and (ii) only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or Trademark Licensees are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records associated with domain names at any level in the TLD; (iii) the TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11); and (iv) Registry Operator has provided ICANN with an accurate and complete copy of such trademark registration. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:42 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 *EXTERNAL OF GT* Dear Paul, Don’t forget: I am ALL FOR famous (well known) TMs to be able to secure their brand as gTLD! I just think for generic term-based and geo name--based strings a spec 13 application (which locks out the general public) should meet WAY higher hurdles than just “some trademark registration”. Otherwise: Yes, I have grossly simplified the rather complex intellectual property rights cloud. There are of course IR TMs and (e.g. in Germany) enhanced protections for famous TMs that extend well beyond the goods and services originally protected. Thanks for clarifying, Alexander From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 14. August 2019 17:15 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Thanks Alexander. Respectfully, your analysis is incorrect. While trademarks are local (state), national, or international (EU marks, Benelux marks) in nature there are protections for trademarks found in International law, e.g. the Paris Convention. I wouldn’t expect anyone in this WG to know that other than the trademark attorneys who participate, so good you brought it up so that I could set the record straight. Your second notion, that trademarks are limited to corresponding goods/services is mostly true (except in jurisdictions that recognize the doctrine of dilution for the protection of famous marks. This would be a more interesting point if gTLD registry applications came with restrictions, i.e. that an applicant made it clear that they have applied for .apple to run an apple farm and that they pledge in advance that there will be no second level registrations that would contain terms or could be used to infringe the APPLE mark (for example, no ability to register computer.apple or use store.apple to sell electronics). Those restrictions would then be incorporated in PICS and brand owners could enforce against registries accordingly. However, ICANN has put no use requirements in place for applicants to agree to, so until they do, we have to take a broad view of trademark rights in order to protect consumers from confusion and malicious activities. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.taftlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ...> www.taftlaw.com / <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> PMcGrady@taftlaw.com <http://www.taftlaw.com/images/bio-icon.jpg> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.taftlaw.com_bio_PMcG...> Taft Bio <http://www.taftlaw.com/images/vcard-icon.jpg> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.taftlaw.com_vcard_PM...> Taft vCard <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__taftlaw.com_news_subscri...> Subscribe to our law updates This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:55 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Christopher, Brilliant. You pointed out an important factor that the brand lobby conveniently “forgot” to point out: The brand lobby claims that TM law is international law – and therefore protected brands were also protected in their representation on the top-level in the DNS. This however falls short (and btw THANKS to your excellent input here Christopher) on not just ONE but even TWO levels: 1. Most trademarks (and by extension all “brands”) are protected on NATIONAL level – while a gTLD in the DNS is a global registration! At bare minimum such TM should be valid in e.g. the majority of all nations (aka: more than 90). 2. Trademarks do NOT protect a “string” – they always ONLY protect the usage of a given string in connection with a very, very narrow defined set of goods and services. The “APPLE” TM doesn’t protect “APPLE” – it protects the USAGE (and in commerce only!) of “APPLE” for branding computers, laptops, etc! Of 100% of goods and services globally this protects just a few dozen out of hundreds of millions of potential use cases. It’s an INCREDIBLE narrow defined protection. There could be literally MILLIONS of trademarks “APPLE” globally - peacefully living in coexistence. But there can only be ONE gTLD “.apple”. Putting 1 and 2 together I think we might have to rethink spec 13 altogether. At BARE MINIMUM spec 13 should NOT be available for geo-name-based and generic dictionary keyword-based strings. There is neither a global right to such string, nor one that extends over ALL goods and ALL services. These need to be “available for the general public”. It is perfectly legal to register (and enforce its protection) “APPLE” for computers and laptops. But always at your own risk! And new gTLDs are such “risk”. You wanted a “catchy” brand – and used a common keyword. Fine. Just don’t try to hijack that keyword on global level of the DNS. It is NOT “yours” – you are merely allowed to “use” it. (using APLLE here only as example – and I will exonerate APPLE in the next paragraph). Spec 13 makes a certain sense – just not for geo names and dictionary terms. If somebody feels the urge and need to “block” such (generic or geo based) gTLD – they need to meet a certain standard. And a US $299 TM registration doesn’t meet ANY standard. We need to have much higher hurdles – like ACTIVELY USED Trademarks in at least 50 countries aged 5 years or older for example. That would be no problem for the APPLEs, ORANGEs or MANGOs in this world. But just only a “Trademark registration” “SHANGHAI” in one or two jurisdictions? Why empowering them to block the identity of a 24 Million community (in fact larger than 2/3 of all countries globally)? I am not “anti-brand”: I think large scale brands have the potential to create an IMMENSE visibility for new gTLDs (if after SEVEN YEARS of application they would finally start to make active use of their TLDs). I just want to avoid that tiny players abuse the protections we are installing for big players. This btw protects also the big players! So I WANT that .apple is with APPLE, Inc – because that is PRECISELY what the Internet user assumes it should be! I just would find it very sad if a small, national operating shoe label “Shanghai” got “.shanghai” for US $25k – depriving 24 Million people and their constituents (businesses, organizations, associations, Government) of their ability to identify themselves with .shanghai domains! So: “THINK BIG” :D Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Dienstag, 13. August 2019 20:19 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Good evening: Following a chat exchange during a recent call,, I have reviewed the Specification 13 .BRAND TLD <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_site...> provisions, dated 31 July 2017, * For present purposes I shall limit my comments to section 9. Definitions : 9.3 (i) The header refers to “a registered trademark valid under applicable law …” from which one might infer that it refers to ANY registered trademark. In which case, it would beg the question quid identical trademark strings registered in different jurisdictions and activities? I believe that the PDP and WT5 have yet to take fully on board that a gTLD confers a global on line monopoly whereas in all other contexts, trademarks and geographical names do not. Thus a .BRAND TLD not only creates additional rights for the Registry, over and above those provided for by the original trademark, but also denies other trademark rights holders from using the same string on-line as a .brand An analogous issue has arisen in connection with Geographical names. 9.3 ( i) b. The language is rather open ended: “… business in connection with the offering… claimed in the trademark registration;” might be open to quite broad interpretations. 9.3 (iii) “the TLD is not a Generic String”. This is very welcome. I have argued, with others, ab initio in WT5 that geographical names are not Generic. I am glad to see that there is an approved precedent. 9.5 (iv) Again, the language “…reasonably related to any of the goods and services identified … “ is rather open ended. How has this been implemented by .brands that have already been delegated? Thankyou for your interest in this matter Christopher Wilkinson * https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_site...> _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate the information. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
