Steven,

With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits.  Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights.  Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit.  If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life.  AND when I say one possible use I really mean it.  The name would not only have to be coined but famous.  A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique.  They are often repeated.  A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization.  An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.

Lets stay focussed and reasonable please.  Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.

Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

Law.es

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)

Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email:  Paul@law.es

 

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.  

 

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

 

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

 


From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>
Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms.  Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their  trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another.  If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online.  Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.

Regards,
Steve

Steven M. Levy, Esq.

Accent Law Group, Inc.
301 Fulton St.
Philadelphia, PA 19147

United States

Phone: +1-215-327-9094
Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com

Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ 
________________________________________
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.


From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM
To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a  domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.

 

This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.

 

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 Rebecca Tushnet
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM
To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though?  How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement?  High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?

 

Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law

703 593 6759

 

From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM
To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives

 

I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.   

 

From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

Hello, all.  On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is.  There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what?  Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred.  If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.

 

Yours,

Rebecca Tushnet

 

Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law

703 593 6759

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com


=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg