Hi Gerald, Domain name are intellectual property. As I cited in the proposal itself: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645194/000119312515394008/d30149dex... " “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=sta... 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=sta... 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/