See: http://domainincite.com/19560-forget-sucks-feedback-will-drive-trademark-owners-nuts-all-over-again
and
http://domainincite.com/19615-feedback-regs-fox-trademark-to-itself-during-sunrise
I believe the policies of .sucks and .feedback need to be discussed. It is one thing to have premium pricing on a name whereby any purchaser of the name would have to pay the same price (even if high); but,
it is another thing to have different prices for a name depending on who the purchaser is (discrimination amongst purchasers). That I do believe is in our scope.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus
USA
| Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E:
jeff.neuman@valideus.com
or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:20 PM
To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
“If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names have led to infringement, I hope we will be able to collect evidence of that.”
Agreed that we should seek this type of data, certainly anecdotal and more comprehensive if available.
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: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:16 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: TMCH review objectives
And is the additional system cost (one component of effectiveness) of individualized review of pricing worth this hypothetical increased risk of later infringement? If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names have led to infringement,
I hope we will be able to collect evidence of that. Likewise with the hypothetical effect of encountering an unregistered domain in a new gTLD. In an age of search engines, I thought we had gotten past the idea that a consumer would type in a domain name and
then give up if no website, or a nonconfusing but non-trademark owner website, resolves. I also highly doubt there's evidence that consumers think less of a trademark owner for not registering every variation.
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
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
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