+ Lori & Jeff

This price system raises a question on the neutrality of the system.

/ Petter

-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M 

Fenix Legal KB 
Stureplan 4c, 4tr 
114 35 Stockholm 
Sweden 
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 
E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu 
www.fenixlegal.eu 


NOTICE 
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. 
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu 
Thank you

23 september 2016 22:50:33 +02:00, skrev Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>:

As Jeff pointed out, it’s not a question of keeping prices low or high, it’s about discriminatory pricing based on whether a national right is granted in a name.   I agree with you that the right is separate from the pricing but when the prices are manipulated based on an exercise of a right it becomes a concern.  There is a built in deterrent to using the TMCH based on a right when that use then leads to extraordinary pricing. 

 

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

 

From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:42 PM
To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>
Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

I’m not sure what you’re saying.  I am asking why keeping prices low (but maybe not too low, given other comments) is a concern of the TMCH review, and asking for a reason related to the legal rights, as opposed to market interests, of trademark owners.  If such a reason isn’t persuasively articulated, then I think that would give us an answer.

 

Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law

703 593 6759

 

From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:37 PM
To: Rebecca Tushnet
Cc: Lori Schulman; Jeff Neuman; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

I think it would probably be a mistake then, to try and exclude the issue from the discussion, if you wish to discuss it. 

 

Thanks,


Kiran

 

From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:35 PM
To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>
Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

I would then like that understanding of the law to be articulated, because I don't see it. 

Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law

 

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. 


On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> wrote:

Hi Rebecca,

 

I think it’s fair to say that the trademark community (through INTA and elsewhere) is basing their concerns on a full understanding of the law. 

 

Thanks,

Kiran

 

Kiran Malancharuvil

Policy Counselor

MarkMonitor

415.222.8318 (t)

415.419.9138 (m)

www.markmonitor.com

 

 

 

From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>
Cc: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

To reiterate and then I will try to stop: "deep concern" and "related to a right granted by national law" are very different things. 

Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law

 

Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. 


On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> wrote:

I also agree with Brad and Jeff.  This pricing issue is a deep concern for INTA members.

 

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

 

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:31 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

 

Agree with Jeff and Bradley below.

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138 (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Sep 23, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:

We also need to look at examples out there where it is not just premium pricing of domains, but there was at least one case (.feedback) that said if you are a trademark owner (whether or not purchased in the Sunrise or after), the price is $X, but if you are not the trademark owner, then your price is $Y, where $Y was thousands of dollars less.


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
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw


Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:20 PM
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
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<mailto: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

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM
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
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.

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM
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<mailto: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.
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list


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