Phillip,

The TMCH was created as a centralized database to simplify the ability to trademark holders to register their trademarks so that they might participate in the Sunrise process in an efficient manner.  Prior to the Ngtld process, each launch had its own “TMCH” process (remember .EU?) in which each trademark holder had to submit “proof” in whatever format the registry demanded.  The TMCH was created to render the trademark/Sunrise submission uniform in nature.  Nothing more.  This then expanded to include “equivalence” - and hence the +10/50 .   The net effect has been that the TMCH has become "THE” only way to participate in Sunrise.   Thus, if one were to argue for “rights holders” it should be over the pricing of TMCH which acts to preclude those trademark holders who cannot afford the cost of registration within the TMCH structure (not to m mention common law rights holders who have no registration).

The protection offered  by Sunrise was to permit those holding trademarks to – on 1st come-1st served basis – participate in a registration process in which only TMCH registered trademark holders could play.  Just because one held a trademark did not guaranty registration if others held identical trademarks registered from other jurisdictions and registered the domain first.  

The Sunrise was a huge benefit because it afforded a “priority” to trademark holders EVEN IF the asserted trademark could be used by a non-trademark holder for non-infringing purposes.  The benefit of participating in Sunrise can be thus summarized:

1. Pre-emptive right to register before:
A. All REGISTERED trademark holders who had NOT paid to be in TMCH
B. ALL COMMON LAW trademark holders who could not participate in TMCH.
C. ALL non-infringing non-trademark users

In addition, trademark holders obviously retain the following:

1. Curative Right to obtain transfer or cancellation per the UDRP/URS.

2. Curative Right to obtain transfer, cancellation and damages per court action.

What is a reasonable price for the Pre-emptive benefit of #1?  That of course depends on the extension at issue.  Why should we be concerned about pricing in this instance? 

Having a trademark comes at a price.  After all the mark is a monopoly protected using public resources.  That the rights holders are burdened with the cost of protection is not per se unreasonable.  For example, the trademark registration fees set by various jurisdictions are solely within the power/authority of each jurisdiction.  Nations are free to set their fees for registration/maintenance of trademark rights.  They can set high registration/maintenance fees if they perceive the monopolistic right to be valuable.  Any nation could, for example, set registration/maintenance fees to be a % of revenues.  That is the sole purview of the nation.  Why should registries be held to any different standard?

Will there be gamesmanship and instances of unfairness?  With reference to .SUCKS were they seeking high prices?  Sure.  Was it unfair towards rights holders?  No.  Pricing is relative.  My cost (as a percentage of disposable income) for KEATING.SUCKS is certainly higher than the price for COKE.SUCKS.  Is it something that we should be concerned with?  No.  There is no logical or philosophical basis for limiting pricing.  In a capitalist system we rely upon the market to determine the fair price  (even in a communist system prices are set at the level to benefit the greater society and not an individual group).  Trademark rights holders (and others) already have legal rights (e.g. defamation, unfair competition, etc).   They may be difficult claims to prevail upon and it may cost money to press a successful claim.  However, such is the legal system.

It is not our place to create a utopia for trademark holders.


Stepping off soapbox now……………

Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

Law.es

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)

Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email:  Paul@law.es

 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.  

 

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

 

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

 


From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Thomas Brackey <tom@bmail.build>
Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:52 PM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

+1

On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Thanks for your input, Bradley and Rebecca.
 
Here is my personal view at this time, subject to further discussion with the other Co-Chairs and the WG members—
 
The TMCH is a means to an end. It is a database of trademarks meeting certain minimum levels of verified quality. While the TMCH is regarded as a RPM it provides no protection in and of itself – the protections come from two related RPMs, Sunrise Registrations and the TM Claims Notice (recognizing that certain other private protection measures, such as Donuts’ DPML, are also tied to TMCH registration).
 
The protection offered by Sunrise Registration is to give rights holders’ the ability to secure a domain in a new gTLD that is an exact match of their TM prior to general availability of registrations, and thereby eliminate the ability of a third party with no legitimate rights or interest to secure the same domain for infringing purposes. If that domain name has been designated as a Premium one by the registry operator then pricing can clearly have some practical impact on the availability of the protection, with the degree of impact varying with the price point.
 
Taking an extreme hypothetical, if initial registration of a particular Premium domain  were set by the RO at $50,000 then the rights holder might naturally feel that the protection held out by the availability of Sunrise registration has been substantially diluted by the pricing, and decide that it would be prudent to wait for general availability and try to secure the domain then, or decline to register at all and simply file a URS or UDRP action if another party secures the domain and uses it for infringing purposes. And, as we know, the feeling among rights holders that Sunrise Registrations are being used to unreasonably exploit them increases when there is a very wide difference between the price set for the Sunrise period versus that in  general availability, or if the Premium domain is a unique non-dictionary term associated with a company or brand.
 
But is pricing within the remit of our WG, and if not is it within the remit of the parallel Subsequent Procedures WG?
 
I will not answer the latter question because we have members and Co-Chairs of that WG participating in this one and they are quite capable of sharing their views. My own view is that it is probably not within the remit of this WG to analyze or change the “hands off” pricing policy established for the new gTLD program, which has led to a very broad spectrum of registry pricing and business models (it seems to be more of a subsequent procedures program and applicant guidebook matter, rather than a direct RPM concern) . 
 
However, I think it  may well be within the remit of this WG to analyze and comment upon the impact of certain registry’s Sunrise pricing models on the effectiveness of Sunrise Registrations as an RPM, and it may also be within the remit of this WG to recommend a system through which rights holders can register concerns about certain registry pricing practices that dilute the RPM’s effectiveness (how the RO or ICANN should respond to such concerns is a separate issue).
 
I hope those remarks spur some further discussion within this WG.
 
Best to all, 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
 
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Silver, Bradley
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM
To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
 
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.   
 
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
 
Hello, all.  On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is.  There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what?  Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred.  If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
 
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
 
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com


=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg