Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug. This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use the URS over the UDRP. We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their brands. The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement. We wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing domain names. There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP. If these distinctions didn't exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS. It would be interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk that Kiran mentioned. Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time. Best, Jon
On Jan 3, 2017, at 2:13 PM, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:
How does one decision signify whether a particular RPM is under, over, or appropriately utilized? I think this can only be determined / analyzed in the aggregate.
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club>> wrote:
I have to agree with Reg here. One argument I’ve heard against URS working is that it is underutilized, and cases like this seem to undermine that argument (although no single case or outcome should be considered dispositive).
Jonathan
Jonathan Frost General Counsel Telephone: (+1)877-707-5752 100 SE 3rd Avenue, #1310 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 E-Mail: jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> Website: www.get.club<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.get.club_&d=DgMFAg&c...> <image002.jpg><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__app.getsignals.com_link...>
Please be advised that this communication is confidential. The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments, may also be attorney-client privileged and/or work product confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Jonathan Frost by telephone at 877.707.5752 or by email at jonathan@get.club<mailto:jonathan@get.club> and delete the original message.
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:35 PM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
My point was that a matter was successfully brought under the RPMs (my point would stand for matters unsuccessfully brought under the RPMs). That cybersquatting exists is not in dispute. Nor is it our—or ICANN’s—job to cause cybersquatting to no longer exist. The matter was a URS, which was a new-to-new-gTLDs RPM and (supposedly) cheaper than the UDRP.
If this does not signify that RPMs work, does it signify that they do not?
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:30, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
Agree with Doug and Marc, I would be curious to understand the thinking further.
Also, it will be interesting to see what happens to all of these names when the suspension period is over.
K
Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m)
Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:27 AM, "trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>" <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:
Agreed. How does one large URS filling indicate that the RPMs are working?
Best Regards,
Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305
On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com<mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com><mailto:disenberg@gigalawfirm.com>> wrote:
As the author of the blog post that Phil shared, I disagree with Reg’s conclusion below (and am quite unsure how that conclusion was reached). This URS case is interesting because its size makes it unusual (and, indeed, unprecedented). It is not indicative of any trend about RPMs in general or the URS in particular. If anything, it is a reminder that there are many domain name registrants – even in the new gTLDs – who continue to engage in cybersquatting on a large-scale, despite the RPMs such as the URS.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas M. Isenberg Attorney at Law
<image001.png><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFA...>
“When your brand is on the line, The GigaLaw Firm protects your brand online.” Learn more: www.GigaLaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.GigaLaw.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=gX7_N2M7MlyRFGp3EK877Z5xGV39lbpfMWOlgzHTz6A&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gigalaw.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=ZlOXy68aDw9dtyJO-ShgSeFTgT5qjSffEUGc14ZQL78&e=>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:56 PM To: Philip S. Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
Which seems to indicate that the current RPMs are working.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2
Current UTC offset: -8
On 3 Jan 2017, at 09:34, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
FYI, on December 21, 2016 NAF suspended 474 DN variants of Ashley Furniture in a single URS filing.
For more background see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.circleid.com_posts_2...> and https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adrforum.com_domaind...>
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=SG-xdBXsuhe_iU3yraFFyY5rMN48-Axxr8sBjZ9NHmg&s=QihKy3Wi3DgO70UkYop9yr94LwUieXHn2inZ-cOea5I&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_&d=DgMFAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=FcC38yjcXr_2gTxPkyIdg59xM2MWYuKpsUT-JCWKmwk&s=DcyREXZNRu3J24MyaCAlQv0DTP01AeO46btFz4QITVk&e=> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 such information. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <image002.jpg>_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg