See the attached. This might be something to write an article in response to From: mkaranicolas@gmail.com Sent: February 25, 2020 4:11 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] On ICANN, RPMs, and trademark Hi all, Of possible interest to this working group, my latest paper, "The New Cybersquatters: The Evolution of Trademark Enforcement in the Domain Name Space", has just been published in the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal. It discusses ICANN's rights-protection mechanisms in the context of broader trademark law principles (and there's even a few cameos from folks in the working group). If you're interested, you can download it at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3528237 Cheers, Michael Karanicolas Resident Fellow Yale Law School The domain name space has become a particularly contentious area of trademark enforcement as a result of the growth of online commerce, an intense competition for popular domain names, and new conceptual challenges stemming from the borderless and textual nature of the medium. In response, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), a global non-profit which oversees the domain-name space, has implemented a highly sophisticated set of rights-protection mechanisms. This Article examines the scope of trademark protections applied under ICANN’s rights protection mechanisms to demonstrate that they have evolved far beyond their traditional consumer protection function; indeed, they have morphed into offensive brand management tools, whose application in the global domain name space vastly exceeds the protections that are available under domestic legal frameworks. The Article begins by introducing ICANN and its main trademark protection instruments, namely the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the Uniform Rapid Suspension, and the Trademark Clearinghouse, before demonstrating the divergence between protections under these systems and the protections under domestic legal frameworks. The result is that trademark owners turn to ICANN for rights and remedies that would not be available from ordinary sovereigns, embodying a major expansion of trademark protections. The Article concludes by outlining the contours of ongoing discussions re-examining these mechanisms, and the challenges in curbing this maximalist view of trademark law. ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.