Brian,

Good point.  I'm concerned about the "Casablanca Syndrome" ("I'm shocked, shocked to find cybersquatting in my gTLD"), which is not really "willful blindness" but more a willingness to set the wheels in motion and look away, when one knows (or should know) what the result will be.  (Indeed, one may depend on it as part of the business model, even if it is not stated.)  While cybersquatting will probably never be eliminated, some circumstances encourage it more than others.  I'm confident that the vast majority of registries really don't want to become "cybersquatting havens," but that doesn't mean that's a universal truth.

Greg

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Thanks, and we will look to your expertise when we reach the URS portion of our agenda later this year.

 

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 URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:38 AM
To: disenberg@gigalawfirm.com
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg


Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

 

Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk about it...

 

I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees.

 

The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately.

 

It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of information if it can be use for .com domains) and  which is the outcome/what happens when suspension period expires.

 

I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many successful URS cases turned into UDRP.

 

Happy New Year to everyone!

 

Ivett Paulovics

URS Domain Dispute Case Manager

---

MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center 

Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)

Skype mfsd

P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN

.it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it

IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903)

IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 392)



1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471


Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg <disenberg@gigalawfirm.com> ha scritto:

I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of
the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my
blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost.  At the
Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark
owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with
more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't
even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names
(and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250).
Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than
for the URS case.  Since trademark owners often consider costs when
evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.

Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM
To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

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,

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg