Griffen,
"certain parties” In the context of legal actions we must remember that there are at least 3 sides here, law enforcement, civil legal investigators who are investigating an alleged wrongful act, and the targets of law enforcement or civil legal investigations. I have found that the last group is often discarded in favor of the 1st two. And, it is not satisfactory to relegate their interests to those protected by “due process”.
So, for me the concept must include the following:
Law enforcement and their authorized agents
Legal counsel, their clients, and their respective authorized agents
I can give two concrete examples (a C&D and a UDRP). As counsel for registrants I often receive cease and desist letters (“C&Ds”). The C&Ds often include quite general allegations of abuse, claiming various trademark rights. The trademark rights are often described as an “international” trademark (yes I know they do not exist). Virtually all C&Ds assert that the underlying trademark is famous. They all conclude with a demand that the domain name be surrendered under threat of litigation – often citing the ACPA – and large damage claims. The UDRP context generally provides more information supporting the claims but often not much more. In either case an informed response must be provided to protect my client’s rights in the domain name - which can be worth 6-7 figures.
My investigation begins with the trademark and its actual use. I then investigate the domain name at issue. This in involves research into the following areas:
Historical ownership
Ownership acquisition by my client (how, when, & from whom)
Current use of the Domain
Historical use of the Domain
I then research the asserted “fame” of the trademark. Obviously, when a “common law” trademark right is asserted the need for this research is intensified. This involves the following research:
Other identical or similar domain names
The historical registration of these domains – who are the registrants and where are they located
The historical use of these domains – how were they used
Trademark registration records for the asserted mark
Trademark registrations for identical or similar marks
Use of these marks
I look at historical sales data to determine if offers have been received and if so by whom.
I also perform historical Google searches trying to identify when the alleged famous mark began to be used and where.
My client is often assisting in this research.
Based upon the findings I provide a response to the claimant.
Now in all honesty not every domain name claim deserves such treatment – particularly given the cost involved. And, much of this research is automated. However, none of the research could be completed in the absence of current and historical WHOIS data.
I hope this helps.
Paul Keating
I arrived home last night and am trying to catch up. Is the document that Griffin attached the latest version? If not, can someone please send me the latest version?
Also, regarding the definition, I am wondering if we should be more specific about who ‘certain parties’ are. I copied the current definition below:
The “legal actions” purpose of RDS includes assisting certain parties( or their legal representatives, agents or service providers) to investigate and enforce civil and criminal laws, protect recognized legal rights, address online abuse or contractual compliance matters, or to assist parties defending against these kinds of activities as a matter of due process, in each case with respect to all stages associated with such activities, including investigative stages; communications with registrants, registration authorities or hosting providers, or administrative or technical personnel relevant to the domain at issue; arbitrations; administrative proceedings; civil litigations (private or public); and criminal prosecutions.
Please feel free to comment on before our call on Monday.
Finally, here is a listing from the Wednesday meeting that summarizes our tasks:
- Summarize each purpose in one sentence:
“Information collected to enable contact between the registrant and <who> <to accomplish what>” - Think in terms of explaining to the data subject why data is being collected for this purpose – keep it concise and simple.
- Are the tasks/users identified by your team so diverse and distinct that they may be more than one purpose? If so, split them up and describe each purpose separately.
- Which purposes covered by other teams are closely related to or overlap the purpose(s) covered by your team?
- Is there any data collected specifically for the stated purpose? Or does that purpose use only data collected for other purposes?
If anyone has thoughts about any of these items, please share them with the team; we will discuss them on our call.
Chuck
Hi all, as we discussed this morning in our informal meeting (those who were able to attend), I have prepared an updated DT 6 document for further consideration. The doc is in redline form so you can all see the changes made. Specifically, these changes include:
- Amending and streamlining the purpose definition (it is now in a single sentence format, and removes references to specific illustrative examples);
- Adding in Farzaneh’s specific use scenario (re suppressing/prosecuting speech/political or civil activity/blasphemous activity) into Annex A.
Best regards,
Griffin
From: jumaropi@yahoo.com [mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 11:53 PM
To: Griffin Barnett <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law>; consult@cgomes.com
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] Monday Meeting
I am on my way too.
Enviado desde mi Huawei
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] Monday Meeting
From: Griffin Barnett
To: consult@cgomes.com
CC: gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org
FYI I am on my way.
For those in Abu Dhabi and who are available, let’s go ahead and meet Monday morning at 8 am GST at the Hiatt restaurant on the 18th floor. We will not be able to have remote participation but that was the time when most were available and we will not make any decisions without involved those who cannot attend.
Chuck