Hi folks, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
As regards your magma.tld example, if I was an ordinary domain registrant unversed in trademark law or UDRP/URS practice and received five separate claims notices of potential infringement, I doubt that I would proceed to complete the registration -- even if the domain was intended to be informational in regard to geology or volcanoes.
Yes, it implicitly attempts to shift the burden of proof from "TM holder needs to prove registrant is cybersquatting" to "registrant needs to prove they're not cybersquatting." That's a chilling effect for registrants. Typically, the really bad actors are going to ignore the claims notices, i.e. the really bad actors are intentionally looking to infringe upon those famous marks, so the burden is disproportionately felt by the innocent. Furthermore, if there was expanded matching and the domain name was registered (a big 'if', as you rightly note!), then 6 (or more!) TM owners would get an email from the TMCH saying that "MAGMA.TLD" was registered, and have to deal with those notices, which creates a cost for them. Recall, TM holders can (and probably already do) do such expanded matching on their own, using domain registration monitoring tools like those from DomainTools and others (or by monitoring the zone files themselves). A quick cease and desist email/letter within the first few days of registration might be satisfactory, instead. (although even that can be overreach, if done on an automated basis -- there have been notorious and dubious C&Ds that have been sent out in the past). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/