Brian: Georges Nahitchevansky had asserted: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001366.html "whole basis of the alleged abuse is ancedotal evidence of a couple of speculators" "To put it bluntly, there hea been no evidence presented that bona fide brand owners are abusing the TMCH system in order to horde common terms or stiffle free speech." I'm presenting more evidence, that it's not just a "couple of speculators". It's our duty as a working group that is reviewing to gather and collect the data. What are you afraid that the data is going to reveal? Perhaps you don't consider "FLOWERS" to be a common term, or that 1-800-Flowers.com is not some mainstream brand. Others in prior emails challenged us to look at the common dictionary terms, and look for evidence. This is another example. I think it's fair game to change people's minds through argument and evidence. We're supposed to do a review, not pretend to do one and say that we did. Some people's minds are so closed, that no amount of evidence can change their position. I'm more optimistic than that. As more and more evidence emerges, the calculation of the costs vs. benefits change. Perhaps some obstructionists who want to cling to the status quo would prefer that situation, rather than see what happens when the costs vs. benefits calculation reaches a tipping point that says "costs of the sunrise period outweigh the benefits". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George,
If your point is that some actors game a system I think that ground is well worn by now.
You suggested in another email that we ought to do away with sunrises.
Given the many views expressed on this list rejecting that idea (noting also the possibility to challenge the trademark registration, or its recordal in the TMCH (www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute)), it is not clear what else can constructively be added to the discussion at this point.
Perhaps in advance of our call tomorrow, our co-chairs wish to weigh in?
Regards,
Brian
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:30 PM To: Jon Nevett Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
Actually, here's an even better example, Flowers.baby:
https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.baby
Creation Date: 2016-11-30T14:31:05Z
According to the schedule at:
https://www.safenames.net/nTLD/NewGtldsByGenericGroup/baby.aspx
The Sunrise was from October 3, 2016 to December 2, 2016, so that clearly falls in the appropriate time frame. Land rush wasn't until December 5, 2016.
General availability starts tomorrow (April 12, 2017). Operated by Neustar (non-Donuts).
Also, Flowers.news is registered to you 1-800-Flowers.com:
https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.news
with a creation date 2015-07-06T08:21:46Z that happens to be the same as that of Google.news:
https://whois.domaintools.com/google.news (2015-07-06T08:21:49Z)
give or take a few seconds. (.news does share the same backend as Donuts, I believe, but is run by Rightside). I won't waste my DomainTools.com credits to check the WHOIS history, though. I think the point's been made.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:59 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Since Donuts is calling into question the Flowers.delivery example (and there are other TLDs operated by Donuts where Flowers.TLD is registered by 1-800-Flowers.com), let's pick a registry not operated by Donuts, namely .miami (operated by Minds+Machines).
Timeline of Launch:
https://comlaude.com/news/new-gtld-updates-miami-launch-schedule
Sunrise Period Closed: 18-Sep-15 (16:00 UTC) Sunrise Type: End Date Sunrise (not first-come, first served) **(implies all domains got created after sunrise, but before launch of General Availability) General Availability: 02-Oct-15 (16:00 UTC)
Please note that there will be no Landrush phase for this TLD.
https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.miami
Creation Date: 2015-09-28T17:38:01Z
(registrant: 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC.)
NB: Notice that the date above is *before* General Availability, implying it was registered in Sunrise.
Oldest WHOIS history at DomainTools is a few days later:
https://research.domaintools.com/research/whois-history/search/?q=flow ers.miami&date=2015-10-02&origin=permalink
Domain ID: 1095074-MMd1 Domain Name: flowers.miami WHOIS Server: whois-dub.mm-registry.com Updated Date: 2015-10-01T14:07:07Z Creation Date: 2015-09-28T17:38:01Z Registry Expiry Date: 2016-09-28T17:38:01Z Sponsoring Registrar: CSC Corporation Service Company Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 299 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID: 34106-Minds Registrant Name: Domain Administrator Registrant Organization: 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC. Registrant Street: One Old Country Road, Suite 500 Registrant City: Carle Place Registrant State/Province: NY Registrant Postal Code: 11514 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.5162376000 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: +1.5162376101 Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: domainadmin@1800flowers.com
If we compare the creation date of flowers.miami, it's the same (give or take a few seconds) as Google.miami:
https://whois.domaintools.com/google.miami
Creation Date: 2015-09-28T17:38:25Z
or Yahoo.miami:
https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.miami
Creation Date: 2015-09-28T17:38:28Z
or Adsense.miami:
https://whois.domaintools.com/adsense.miami
Creation Date: 2015-09-28T17:37:57Z
All of which were presumably registered via Sunrise.
I'm not going to go through all 1000+ TLDs to check Flowers.TLD (I'd quickly use up all my DomainTools limits! Plus, I have a life.)
But, 1-800-Flowers.com also owns Flowers.Yokohama
https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.yokohama
and that's not operated by Donuts or by Minds+Machines (it's by GMO Registry). Its creation date is 2014-08-05T06:40:00.0Z
whereas the landrush was a day later:
https://ie.godaddy.com/help/about-yokohama-domain-names-11994
"From August 6, 2014 at 3:00 UTC to September 5, 2014 at 14:59 UTC, customers can purchase .yokohama domain names at a premium price."
Flowers.yokohama has the same creation date/time (to the exact second) as:
Google.Yokohama:
https://whois.domaintools.com/google.yokohama
Creation Date: 2014-08-05T06:40:00.0Z
or Yahoo.Yokohama
https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.yokohama
Creation Date: 2014-08-05T06:40:00.0Z
and these would clearly be sunrise registrations.
Is there a (Tunisian) trademark of 1-800-Flowers.com for "FLOWERS" in the TMCH? If so, is it sunrise eligible? If so, are they using it to get Flowers.TLD before anyone else can, in sunrise periods?
If ICANN wants to subsidize higher limits for a DomainTools account, and give me a per diem, I can find more examples, if the above isn't compelling enough evidence.
Or, we can open up the TMCH and see what's hiding there.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:27 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
So, if Flowers.delivery *wasn't* a Sunrise registration, then if we examined the TMCH we wouldn't find any recordals (past or present) for "FLOWERS" by 1-800-Flowers.com that were sunrise eligible??
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:24 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
How was it created before EAP began, then? Yahoo.delivery and USPS.delivery weren't sunrise either?? (same creation dates/times, give or take a few seconds)
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote:
George:
All I'm saying is that flowers.delivery wasn't a sunrise registration. I'm not commenting on your other points.
Jon
On Apr 11, 2017, at 9:06 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> wrote: > That one is not a smoking gun. It is a legitimate registration by a legitimate entity.
So, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if my company went out and registered a TM in some obscure jurisdiction like Tunisia, for the brand MATH, in the goods and services of "math education", used that mark in the TMCH to register MATH.TLD domains ahead of every other competitor in the math industry during sunrise, and then redirected the resulting domains to Math.com, that would be a "legitimate registration by a legitimate entity"?
I think most people would say "George, you gamed the system." and rightly so.
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
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.