Neither “citation” provides support for the supposition that “Domain name [sic] are intellectual property.”

The first is a definition of “Intellectual Property” contained in a license agreement; such definitions are only for use in and purposes of the agreement and the convenience of drafting, and does not stand for any absolute truth that each named item is an article of intellectual property in the eyes of the law or in fact.

The second is a slogan contained in a registered trademark, and (I presume) is intended to promote the idea that a registrar affiliated with an intellectual property law firm will provide superior service because of the connection between domain names and intellectual property (specifically, trademarks).

What these “citations” tend to show is that domain names are often lumped in with intellectual property, that they are a use of intellectual property, that domain names tend to be licensed along with the intellectual property they use, that registration and management of domain names arguably benefits from awareness of and experience with intellectual property concerns, and that Googling (sorry, Google <brand> searching) does not prove anything without further analysis, and that “fun” is not relevant to the probative value of a “citation.”

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:19 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi Gerald,

Domain name are intellectual property. As I cited in the proposal itself:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645194/000119312515394008/d30149dex99h4.htm

" “Intellectual Property” shall mean all (a) trademarks, service
marks, ****domain names****, trade dress, logos and trade names and
registrations and applications for registration thereof, (b)
copyrights and registrations and applications for registration
thereof, (c) trade secrets and confidential business information,
including data, methodologies and algorithms relating to market
indices, and (d) other proprietary rights relating to any of the
foregoing. " (emphasis added)

I'm happy to provide you with more citations, if you'd like. Here's a
particularly fun one:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78352055&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Mark: LADASDOMAINS DOMAIN NAMES ARE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

:-)

As for the Voyuer.com case, the following finding is the relevant part:

"As to Respondent’s right to the mark, since Respondent has
demonstrated conclusively that it registered its domain name before a
registration of the trademark was ever attempted. "

The registration of the trademark was attempted on the application
filing date, December 15, 1998:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75605968&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Xedoc Holdings acquired the domain name in dispute, Voyuer.com in
January of 2005, from the prior owner, and the domain's creation date
was in 1997.

Thus, the panel's finding that it "registered its domain name before a
registration of the trademark was ever attempted" is true only if
"registered its domain name" refers to the creation date (in 1997),
since we've already established that the trademark was filed on
December 15, 1998. The panel clearly did not find that January 2005
was the time it "registered its domain name" for the purpose of the
relevant bad faith test.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:02 AM, <gmlevine@researchtheworld.com> wrote:
> Domain names, valuable or not, are not intellectual property. The referenced Virtual Dates (Forum 2005) decision did not rest on a finding that the new owner was a successor in interest. GmLevine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:36 AM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>
> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
>
> [re-sending from my correct email address]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg