I agree with Lori and Jeff. Best regards, Scott [vlp_logo][IntellectualPropertyLaw 100] [microbadge[1]] <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com<mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:51 PM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives 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<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>> Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com<mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto: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><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3e%3e> 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. See: http://domainincite.com/19560-forget-sucks-feedback-will-drive-trademark-own... and http://domainincite.com/19615-feedback-regs-fox-trademark-to-itself-during-s... 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<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com%3e> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3e> 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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> [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<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu><mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>><mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu%3e%3e> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> 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><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com%3e%3e> 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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> [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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> 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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%3e> [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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> 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><mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com><mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com%3e> ================================================================= ================================================================= 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<http://www.avg.com><http://www.avg.com><http://www.avg.com%3e> 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<http://www.avg.com><http://www.avg.com><http://www.avg.com%3e> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org%3e> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
