The law is clear: an exact match isn't free speech. It is trademark infringement. A domain that coveys a message (e.g., hotels suck.com) is free speech and protected accordingly. Also, "free speech" is a US constitutional concept adopted by some countries, but it is not a universal legal concept. Perhaps universal free speech is aspirational, but it is not reality. Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2017, at 5:44 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I'm not sure where J. Scott is getting his "facts", but my company doesn't "arbitrage" nor has it registered *any* new gTLD domain names (and I have no desire for any), nor is it a "bad actor." If you have proof that my company is a "bad actor", put it forward, rather than sling unsupported innuendo.
The whole point is that the "barriers" are put forth as *required* to deal with so-called "bad actors", but are instead used to advantage certain groups, far beyond the "damage" that is claimed to be caused by the "bad actors."
I don't want to delve into politics, but some might see parallels to certain government measures in some countries, where a "problem" is claimed, but a Draconian solution is applied to deal with it.
When it comes to the sunrise periods for new gTLDs, the "problem" is claimed to be cybersquatting, but instead of relying on curative rights, the Sunrise policy went too far and gave too many advantages to TM holders, essentially creating an unlevel playing field between *good actors* and TM holders.
Free speech means *no prior restraints* (with very rare exceptions), but harsh penalties for unlawful speech (curative rights).
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cor...
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:08 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote: The same logic applies to you and other domaines, cybersquatters, speculators and small businesses. The fact that you want to arbitrage in terms that are also trademarks is your choice and you have to deal with the barriers put in place to deal with the bad actors.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 6, 2017, at 4:59 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: Finally, since the chart references the EFF letter, it is worth mentioning here that the fact that a trademark owner may pay (sometimes extremely high amounts) to defensively register a domain name exactly matching its trademark in a Sunrise process (and thereby taking it “off the market”) does not prevent free expression, which may be undertaken in countless other ways. The number of terms that may be appended to a trademark (not to mention typos) to engage in all manner of speech – fair or otherwise – is, practically-speaking, all but limitless.
By that "logic", the number of terms that may be appended to a common dictionary word (not to mention typos) to create a trademarkable brand is, practically-speaking, all but limitless. :-)
In other words, those creating a new brand/trademark certainly had the opportunity to create a longer (and thus inferior) alternative to a commonly used dictionary word or other common term. The fact that they decided instead to choose a common term that is widely used by the public shouldn't give them any priority access in a launch of a new gTLD.
"I created a problem for myself, and I want ICANN to fix it" is the essence of the sunrise argument for commonly used terms, like dictionary words and short acronyms.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...