I must admit I’m troubled at the suggestion that registries attempt to enforce TM infringement standards.
E.g. Hanson.entertainment
How would the registry effectively parse the rights to registration of:
- Hanson the band could use it for a music channel
- Hanson Concrete could use it for how-to videos
- Hanson Professional Services may register the domain for future use to stream marketing videos
There are plenty of courtrooms where reasonable parties using the same mark disagree on who’s rights have primacy, I don’t believe registries should be asked to spit that baby.
Cyntia King
CEO & Founder
Modern IP, LLC
PO Box 609
Forsyth, MO 65653
+1 81-ModernIP / +1 816.633.7647
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:11 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
Jeremy:
First, even in a .fruit there is no guarantee that apple.fruit would be used for supporting the benefits of the fruit. However, if someone would take responsibility for the use of the second level TLD, that would be different. I am sure a multi-national computer company would have no problem with folks registering and using domains for generic or descriptive purposes or for unrelated purposes. The problem that there is no easy way to thwart having to file an expensive UDRP or more expensive lawsuit to police the misuse of one’s mark. If registries and registrars would enforce the provision of their contracts where the registrant represents that its domain does not infringe on the rights of others that would be one thing, but they don’t. If all new TLDs were sponsored or chartered wherein registration in the TLD required upfront verification that the registrant was in the class of persons for whom the TLD operates (e.g., like a .bank) or if domains were not sold on a first come, first served basis (like Yellow Pages ads in the old phone books), then we wouldn’t have the issues we do.
There are many cost-effective and efficient solutions beyond the Sunrise, but it also would greatly effect the artificial scarcity created by first come, first served sales and the bottom-line of registries that would actually need to take some responsibility to police their TLDs or at least assist TM owners by taking down infringements.
J. Scott
J. Scott Evans
408.536.5336 (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Associate General Counsel
408.709.6162 (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
On 4/14/17, 10:11 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
On 13/4/17 8:47 pm, Greg Shatan wrote:
> However, I don't think number 2 qualifies as gaming or abuse -- except
> to the extent the trademark owner is being gamed or abused. Indeed,
> one of the failed assumptions of the New gTLD Program seems to have
> been that trademark owners would buy even more defensive registrations
> than they did.
So there's nothing wrong with a company that has a trademark for
computers sunrise registering that trademark in a gTLD that relates to
fruit on the strength of its computer trademark, locking out those who
would actually use that domain name to sell fruit? Sounds like abuse to me.
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list