consider.
i.e. the 3 biggest reasons for a respondent default are:
1. egregious cybersquatting, where the case is unwinnable (I'd call
"inadvertent" defaults in scenarios #2 and #3 (i.e. prevent those from
being gamed by complainants), then my concerns would be reduced.
and arguments, though, and not simply accept it "blindly" (i.e.
doesn't show up).
Thank you George, excellent points. You may also want to consider adding a
true default rule (as in the courts and TTAB ) to that list to avoid
panelists becoming public defenders or engaging in judicial activism to
championv no-show respondents.
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Questionable UDRPs & TM applications
To participate in a new gTLD sunrise period, a TMCH markholder must
submit a proof of use, see question/answer 2.2 through 2.4 of:
The justification for that requirement was to prevent gaming. This
rule was established before sunrise periods even came about for new
gTLDs, as folks expected abuse if the proof of use requirement did not
exist (and they saw what happened in the .EU sunrise).
The same principle should apply to the UDRP, given the *actual* abuse
we're observing, as folks exploit gaping loopholes in the policy. In
the 1990s, the drafters of the UDRP either did not contemplate these
kinds of attacks, or did not appreciate the potential severity of the
problem. To not eliminate those loopholes would invite further abuse
of domain name registrants.
We're not at that disussion point yet, but when we get there I will
suggest going much further than simply using "proof of use" for
standing requirements of the UDRP. If there was an actual lawsuit,
it's almost a certainty that revenues generated by the trademarked
goods/services would need to be presented to the courts. If UDRP
complainants had to file audited financials relating to actual
revenues generated from their mark, that would go a long way to
eliminating abuse of the procedure by trademark trolls.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
wrote:
While I think this subject is several months premature, and I don’t want
to
wade in on the substance at this time, we should note that what is being
suggested here is that ICANN give preference to certain national trademark
regimes and disregard others. Tricky topic in ICANNland for sure,
especially these days.
Best to all,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Questionable UDRPs & TM applications
Excellent point, Phil.
Sent from my iPhone
This suggests to me that all trademarks are not created equal, and that
when
we reach our UDRP work we may wish to address the issue of whether a
certain
quality of trademark should be required for filing a UDRP.
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
On Behalf Of Emil
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:44 PM
To: Paul Keating
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Questionable UDRPs & TM applications
Paul, thank you for appreciating my concern.
I am very pleased to see that I can bring value in this exclusive
community
of professionals.
In the last 12 years I've seen a lot of cases where legitimate SMEs get
bullied with the "we'll get your domain" threat based on abusive TM
registrations, mostly postdating the domain name registration dates. In
some
cases I am very familiar with the patterns - as in how relatively
established website owners try to game the system - concrete ways.
This is a major problem in certain countries of Europe (eastern block) and
outside Europe (countries like Tunisia let's say) where you can
theoretically register any trademark even if it is not necessarily
distinctive, special nor recognizable.
On 20 Aug 2016 00:15, Paul Keating <
Paul@law.es> wrote:
This and comments such as George's should not be lost. These comments
need
to be retained and specifically addressed during the UDRP portion of the
WG.
Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Questionable UDRPs & TM applications
George, often TM registrations are granted on bogus or strange claims. For
example Christian Louboutin was granted a TM for red shoes outsole. By
this
logic BMW could be granted a TM for silver cars.
In the domain world:
There is a car rental company called economycarrentals.com. They tried to
obtain a TM at European level for "economy car rentals", a super generic
term used by thousands of rental agencies. Why? So that they can claim
economyrentacar.com and economyrentalcars.com in WIPO - the EMD of their
main competitor.
They were refused (now twice) an EM Europe Wide trademark for lack of
distinctiveness but went on and tried at country level. A handfull of
countries allowed them to register a word (not figurative) trademark on
"economy car rentals" a dictionary super generic formulation. Now they
will
threaten & hussle with a WIPO arbitration all the local TLD owners for
those
particular countries.
Emil
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this
message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be
used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.