I would also note that various ccTLDs currently implement loser pays models. There are different approaches based on the contractual relationships of the parties. When the time arrives, we can assess the landscape for ideas, concerns and potential solutions. Best, Claudio On Thursday, October 18, 2018, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Ah yes, the "price common registrants out of defending their domain name" fee...
Best,
Volker
Am 18.10.2018 um 18:20 schrieb claudio di gangi:
Volker,
Under Section 2.2 of the existing URS rules, the loser pays model is implemented through the responsive fee which is refundable to the prevailing party, only when the complaint involves over 15 domains.
The issue of damages is naturally dependent on the laws of the relative jurisdiction.
Hope helpful.
Best regards, Claudio
On Thursday, October 18, 2018, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Adding a "loser pays" mechanism is a surefire way to drive costs up as it would require an enforcement mechanism for fee collection (or the winning party to engage collection agencies themselves). It may also lead to greater numbers of cases of stolen personal data sets used in registrations to avoid payment in the first place.
Ultimately, in many cases the winning party would end up paying more.
Additionally, what about the cases where the decision is ultimately overruled by a court?
Best,
Volker
Am 18.10.2018 um 01:06 schrieb Michael Graham (ELCA) via GNSO-RPM-WG:
Paul:
Not entirely clear on how you are relating "due process" with an non-judicial administrative process that does not include a "loser pays" element. Are you generally arguing that the American system is somehow more fundamentally fair or comports with "due process" principles than the English system of reimbursement of legal fees? Obviously if there were support for exploring a "user pays" system, there is a great deal of analysis, policy development, and implementation work that would be required to ensure "due process" and fairness.
Michael R.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:14 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> <susan.payne@valideus.com>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS "Loser Pays" proposal vs. TTAB Manual of Procedure
Susan,
Can you please name those fora that do so?
I believe that George was referencing the PTO as an example in which even in a much more "due processs" oriented proceeding no such cost sharing is permitted.
I agree with him.
Paul
On 10/3/18, 4:55 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg on behalf of Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of susan.payne@valideus.com> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.orgonbehalfofsusan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
It's unclear to me what possible relevance the practice of the US trademark office has to this. Plenty of fora utilise a mechanism whereby the losing party makes a contribution to the costs of the proceedings.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy
Valideus 28-30 Little Russell Street London WC1A 2HN United Kingdom
D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8255 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8299 M: +44 (0) 7971 661175 E: susan.payne@valideus.com www.valideus.com
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Valideus. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Valideus Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and VAT number 272 9057 85. Our registered office is at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN <https://maps.google.com/?q=28-30+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2HN&ent...>.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 02 October 2018 15:32 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS "Loser Pays" proposal vs. TTAB Manual of Procedure
Hi folks,
In addition to the past concerns expressed re: identity theft, and how it can lead to a denial of service attack if a loser pays policy was adopted for the URS:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003291.html
I did some additional research today on the United States TTAB procedures, and found this:
https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TBMP/current#/current/sec-6f6dfee8-51e8-40b5-bc2...
"Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure 2018-06
502.05 Attorneys’ Fees, etc., on Motions
The Board will not hold any person in contempt, or award attorneys’ fees, other expenses, or damages to any party. [ Note 1.]
NOTES:
1. 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(f); NSM Resources Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1029, 1035 n.10 (TTAB 2014) (Board cannot assess monetary damage awards); General Mills Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Industries SA, 100 USPQ2d 1584, 1591 (TTAB 2011) (no authority to determine damages), judgment set aside on other grounds, 110 USPQ2d 1679 (TTAB 2014) (non-precedential); Kairos Institute of Sound Healing, LLC v. Doolittle Gardens, LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1541, 1544 n.6 (2008); Central Manufacturing Inc. v. Third Millennium Technology Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (TTAB 2001) ("although the Board does not impose monetary sanctions or award attorneys’ fees or other expenses, the Board has the authority to enter other appropriate sanctions"); Duke University v. Haggar Clothing Co., 54 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 n.3 (TTAB 2000). See also 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(g) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h)(1). Note, however, that conduct in violation of the Disciplinary Rules set forth in 37 C.F.R. Part 11 may be referred to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) for appropriate action. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.19 et seq."
So, what is being proposed in regards to "loser pays" doesn't appear to exist in the US TTAB procedures.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing listGNSO-RPM-WG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net
Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net
Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.