June 2017 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr June 4, 2017

June 4, 2017

Dear Working Group Members, Below are the Action Items from today’s Working Group call. You will find the complete action items, notes, documents/materials and recordings for today’s call on the meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw. The transcripts will be posted on the same wiki page once they are available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to remind WG members on-list to review the questions prepared by the Trademark Claims Sub Team, and submit questions before next week; staff to work with co-chairs and Sub Team to adjust the WG Work Plan to estimate start date and duration for this work 2. Staff to circulate the draft questions on Private Protections to the WG mailing list for review and feedback 3. Private Protection questions to be passed on to the Sub Team by staff to evaluate if they are worth pursuing, and what data is required to answer them – this action item has been deferred until WG members have had an opportunity to review the questions 4. Staff to add Claudio DiGangi and Greg Shatan as members of the Private Protections Sub Team – Sub Team is still accepting new members 5. Staff to circulate study in World Trademark Review referred to by Greg Shatan for consideration by the WG 6. WG members to suggest different names for “Private Protection” on the WG mailing list that may be more effective at achieving what the WG is attempting to describe 7. WG members should review the Private Protection questions prior to next week's WG call – Revisions to be discussed as part of the agenda for the WG call next week 8. Brian Beckham to circulate Version 3.0 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview of UDRP Cases paper circulated at INTA meeting to WG mailing list

8 8

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. June 2, 2017

June 2, 2017

Dear all: The examples we cited have the potential to be used for cybersquatting, since they constitute either identical or non-exact matches, and accordingly are worth consideration for inclusion in any proposal for smarter non-exact matches. No one made any judgment as to whether the specific examples cited actually constitute legitimate use versus cybersquatting, although we note that at least one was taken directly from a successful UDRP complaint. Further, expanding Claims in this fashion does not impact a prospective registrants ability to register the name, if he/she so chooses. It would merely expand the applicable Claims notices generated, and if the registration is completed, would provide notice of registered name to the relevant mark owner(s). Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284 direct dial 202.830.0330 fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345 direct dial From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian F. Cimbolic Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:08 AM To: Volker Greimann; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches Agreed, Volker. Brian W – were you suggesting that the two categories of additional inexact “matches” be included in the TMCH in addition to the categories Greg provided? On the second category (Related Brand Names) how would that play out in practice? Would we include every possible permutation of existing marks already contained in the TMCH? That would be quite the expansion of the TMCH. Would it just for somehow related fields/services and if so, who would make the determination for “related” marks? Thanks, Brian Brian Cimbolic Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| www.pir.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pir.org…> | Facebook<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceboo…> | Twitter<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com…> | Instagram<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finstagram.c…> | YouTube<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube…> Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:04 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches Hi Brian, why should such "telescoped terms" be protected at all? To take but two of your examples: sie.men - Siemen is a Dutch name. Sie also means "You" formally in German. NES.cafe - So if I wanted to open a retro-style gaming cafe for the Nintendo Entertainment System, that would trigger your proposed protections? It seems to be assumed that if a string matches or is similar to a trademarked term, its registration equates to cybersquatting, but that is not the case. Such protections are overreaching and infringing on the ability of legitimate users of such strings. A trademark is only violated if the domain is used in a violating way or if the intent of the registration is to deprive or to extort from the trademark holder. ANY other use of the term is likely to be legitimate and should not in any way be made more difficult than any other domain registration. Best, Volker Am 31.05.2017 um 20:28 schrieb Winterfeldt, Brian J.: Dear all: In response to a comment made on our call today suggesting that the attached, well drafted, proposal is a “comprehensive” representation of cybersquatting through non-exact matches, we offer a few additional examples: 1. Telescoped Terms: These variations leverage TLD extensions as part of an identical or non-exact match trademark. For example, COCA-CO.LA, SIE.MEN and NES.CAFE. 1. Related Brand Names: These variations either improperly attempt to use trademarks in a generic sense, or create consumer confusion concerning the relationship between two or more otherwise unrelated trademarks. For example, GOOGLELINKEDIN.COM<http://GOOGLELINKEDIN.COM>. We are no longer surprised by the new and inventive ways cybersquatters develop each day to create consumer confusion online, and would strongly caution against any characterization as truly comprehensive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches All, As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. Greg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o…> -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.key-sys…> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.RRPprox…> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.domaind…> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.BrandSh…> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceboo…> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter…> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keydriv…> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.key-sys…> / www.RRPproxy.net<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.RRPprox…> www.domaindiscount24.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.domaind…> / www.BrandShelter.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.BrandSh…> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceboo…> www.twitter.com/key_systems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter…> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keydriv…> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

3 2

RESENDING documents and NEW links (Re: Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017)
by Mary Wong June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Dear all, As requested during the Working Group call, staff is resending the following documents (see attachments; both have also been uploaded to the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw) * The set of draft questions on “private protections” from the co-chairs – note that your input and comments on both the questions and on a new name for this subject/Sub Team should be sent to this mailing list before the next Working Group call next week * The set of TM Claims questions proposed by the TM Claims Sub Team – note that comments are also to be sent to this mailing list before the next call In addition, here is the link to the blog post mentioned by Greg Shatan regarding brand owner reports on online misuse: http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=cfc250b5-6521-4448-8… (staff is still trying to get a copy of the full study); and a link to the new WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 mentioned by Brian Beckham: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 17:53 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Below are the Action Items from today’s Working Group call. You will find the complete action items, notes, documents/materials and recordings for today’s call on the meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/EQbwAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. The transcripts will be posted on the same wiki page once they are available. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to remind WG members on-list to review the questions prepared by the Trademark Claims Sub Team, and submit questions before next week; staff to work with co-chairs and Sub Team to adjust the WG Work Plan to estimate start date and duration for this work 2. Staff to circulate the draft questions on Private Protections to the WG mailing list for review and feedback 3. Private Protection questions to be passed on to the Sub Team by staff to evaluate if they are worth pursuing, and what data is required to answer them – this action item has been deferred until WG members have had an opportunity to review the questions 4. Staff to add Claudio DiGangi and Greg Shatan as members of the Private Protections Sub Team – Sub Team is still accepting new members 5. Staff to circulate study in World Trademark Review referred to by Greg Shatan for consideration by the WG 6. WG members to suggest different names for “Private Protection” on the WG mailing list that may be more effective at achieving what the WG is attempting to describe 7. WG members should review the Private Protection questions prior to next week's WG call – Revisions to be discussed as part of the agenda for the WG call next week 8. Brian Beckham to circulate Version 3.0 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview of UDRP Cases paper circulated at INTA meeting to WG mailing list

1 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Dear all: In response to a comment made on our call today suggesting that the attached, well drafted, proposal is a “comprehensive” representation of cybersquatting through non-exact matches, we offer a few additional examples: 1. Telescoped Terms: These variations leverage TLD extensions as part of an identical or non-exact match trademark. For example, COCA-CO.LA, SIE.MEN and NES.CAFE. 2. Related Brand Names: These variations either improperly attempt to use trademarks in a generic sense, or create consumer confusion concerning the relationship between two or more otherwise unrelated trademarks. For example, GOOGLELINKEDIN.COM. We are no longer surprised by the new and inventive ways cybersquatters develop each day to create consumer confusion online, and would strongly caution against any characterization as truly comprehensive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 10:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Proposal for Smarter Non-Exact Matches All, As I've mentioned earlier, I think that a proposal to use non-exact matches other than "mark contained" matches ("dumb matches") makes sense to pursue. Various types of matches have been discussed; however, there has been no actual proposal for "smarter" matches that can be used by the group. The attached proposal seek to fill that gap. It is more in the nature of an addendum to the initial proposal on non-exact matches. However, it does provide a more formal proposal on the types of non-exact matches to be considered. The intent is to provide a sufficient framework to discuss these types of non-exact matches and to add these non-exact matches to the proposal. I hope that this helpful to the work of the group. Greg __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

3 2