Unacceptable URS determinations our initial report will not begin to address
Dear All, Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again. Yours sincerely, Paul. *cfa.club * Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrar www.eachnic.com Complainant submitted September 19, 2019 Commencement October 7, 2019 Default Date October 22, 2019 Domain Suspended October 25, 2019 Examiner Flip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Hao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale *The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active* * website. * *It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. * *Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven * *cfa.community* Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrar domains.google.com Complainant Submitted October 8, 2019 Commencement October 8, 2019 Default Date October 23, 2019 Domain Suspended October 23, 2019 Examiner Dawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed *cfa.plus * Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrar www.west.cn Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Response Date October 29, 2019 Domain Suspended October 29, 2019 Examiner David L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Peng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale *“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (**李鹏程* *), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. * *Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location* *, or both. * *cfa.business* Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrar www.godaddy.com Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Default Date November 1, 2019 Domain Returned November 1, 2019 Examiner Richard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “*Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”*
Dear Paul, I am writing as co-chair, but without the opportunity to talk with my other co-chairs. We did a complete investigation of each and every one of the URS cases which had taken place up to a certain time (I believe it was the end of 2018). Each and every case was reviewed by someone in this WG. Everyone had the chance to participate. Harvard Law School further created detailed tables. Then we had to stop our research and analysis. At a certain point, you have to draw a line a line and move on. In this case, we moved on to our work on the TM Notices, Sunrise Periods and Trademark Clearinghouse reviews. /But we have a timeline, and the GNSO Council needs our work in Phase One to include in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook./ All of the cases you mention, and which we appreciate, fall after our window of analysis. Quick personal note that I think our recommendations clearly address at least one issue that you raise in your email. One, and I quote, "Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed" ==> this is being addressed in a URS recommendation going out for public comment. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2019 11:49 AM, Paul Tattersfield wrote:
Dear All,
Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
*cfa.club*Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrarwww.eachnic.com <http://www.eachnic.com> Complainant submittedSeptember 19, 2019 CommencementOctober 7, 2019 Default DateOctober 22, 2019 Domain SuspendedOctober 25, 2019 ExaminerFlip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm ClaimantCFA Institute of Charlottesville RepresentedDLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington RespondentHao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale /The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active//website.
//It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. // //Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven
/*cfa.community*Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrardomains.google.com <http://domains.google.com> Complainant SubmittedOctober 8, 2019 CommencementOctober 8, 2019 Default DateOctober 23, 2019 Domain SuspendedOctober 23, 2019 ExaminerDawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm ClaimantCFA Institute of Charlottesville RepresentedDLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington RespondentContact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed
*cfa.plus*Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrarwww.west.cn <http://www.west.cn/> Complainant SubmittedOctober 16, 2019 CommencementOctober 17, 2019 Response DateOctober 29, 2019 Domain SuspendedOctober 29, 2019 ExaminerDavid L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm ClaimantCFA Institute of Charlottesville RepresentedDLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington RespondentPeng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale /“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (//李鹏程//), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. // //Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location//, or both. /
*cfa.business*Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrarwww.godaddy.com <http://www.godaddy.com/> Complainant SubmittedOctober 16, 2019 CommencementOctober 17, 2019 Default DateNovember 1, 2019 Domain ReturnedNovember 1, 2019 ExaminerRichard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm ClaimantCFA Institute of Charlottesville RepresentedDLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington RespondentDomains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “/Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”/
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Kathy, and I agree that the WG review and resulting proposed fixes and recommendations already speak to this concern. Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 December 2019 at 18:25:38 CET, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote: Dear Paul, I am writing as co-chair, but without the opportunity to talk with my other co-chairs. We did a complete investigation of each and every one of the URS cases which had taken place up to a certain time (I believe it was the end of 2018). Each and every case was reviewed by someone in this WG. Everyone had the chance to participate. Harvard Law School further created detailed tables. Then we had to stop our research and analysis. At a certain point, you have to draw a line a line and move on. In this case, we moved on to our work on the TM Notices, Sunrise Periods and Trademark Clearinghouse reviews. But we have a timeline, and the GNSO Council needs our work in Phase One to include in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. All of the cases you mention, and which we appreciate, fall after our window of analysis. Quick personal note that I think our recommendations clearly address at least one issue that you raise in your email. One, and I quote, "Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed" ==> this is being addressed in a URS recommendation going out for public comment. Best, Kathy On 12/11/2019 11:49 AM, Paul Tattersfield wrote: Dear All, Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again. Yours sincerely, Paul. cfa.club Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrar www.eachnic.com<http://www.eachnic.com> Complainant submitted September 19, 2019 Commencement October 7, 2019 Default Date October 22, 2019 Domain Suspended October 25, 2019 Examiner Flip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Hao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active website. It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven cfa.community Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrar domains.google.com<http://domains.google.com> Complainant Submitted October 8, 2019 Commencement October 8, 2019 Default Date October 23, 2019 Domain Suspended October 23, 2019 Examiner Dawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed cfa.plus Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrar www.west.cn<http://www.west.cn/> Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Response Date October 29, 2019 Domain Suspended October 29, 2019 Examiner David L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Peng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale “The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (李鹏程), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location, or both. cfa.business Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrar www.godaddy.com<http://www.godaddy.com/> Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Default Date November 1, 2019 Domain Returned November 1, 2019 Examiner Richard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.” _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
++1 thanks Kathy and I concur with Brian Kind regards Poncelet On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Thanks Kathy, and I agree that the WG review and resulting proposed fixes and recommendations already speak to this concern. Brian
Sent from my WIPO mobile
On 11 December 2019 at 18:25:38 CET, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Dear Paul,
I am writing as co-chair, but without the opportunity to talk with my other co-chairs. We did a complete investigation of each and every one of the URS cases which had taken place up to a certain time (I believe it was the end of 2018). Each and every case was reviewed by someone in this WG. Everyone had the chance to participate. Harvard Law School further created detailed tables.
Then we had to stop our research and analysis. At a certain point, you have to draw a line a line and move on. In this case, we moved on to our work on the TM Notices, Sunrise Periods and Trademark Clearinghouse reviews.
*But we have a timeline, and the GNSO Council needs our work in Phase One to include in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.* All of the cases you mention, and which we appreciate, fall after our window of analysis.
Quick personal note that I think our recommendations clearly address at least one issue that you raise in your email. One, and I quote, "Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed" ==> this is being addressed in a URS recommendation going out for public comment.
Best, Kathy On 12/11/2019 11:49 AM, Paul Tattersfield wrote:
Dear All,
Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
*cfa.club * Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrar www.eachnic.com Complainant submitted September 19, 2019 Commencement October 7, 2019 Default Date October 22, 2019 Domain Suspended October 25, 2019 Examiner Flip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Hao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale *The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active*
* website. * *It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. *
*Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven * *cfa.community* Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrar domains.google.com Complainant Submitted October 8, 2019 Commencement October 8, 2019 Default Date October 23, 2019 Domain Suspended October 23, 2019 Examiner Dawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed
*cfa.plus * Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrar www.west.cn Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Response Date October 29, 2019 Domain Suspended October 29, 2019 Examiner David L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Peng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale *“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (**李鹏程* *), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. *
*Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location* *, or both. *
*cfa.business* Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrar www.godaddy.com Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Default Date November 1, 2019 Domain Returned November 1, 2019 Examiner Richard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “*Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”*
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing listGNSO-RPM-WG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
<ATT00001.txt>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>* *https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/ <https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/> * *www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>*
Dear Brian and Kathy, Kathy, I think it would be prudent to take a closer look at the examples I provided. The only reason I included the cfa.community determination was to illustrate that if the panellist had changed their practice to meet the WG’s new recommendations it wouldn’t make any difference. Even after 4+ years of weekly working group meetings the recommendations will demonstrably fail to help in dozens of similar cases going forward. Brian, Firstly URS does not offer relief for a TM holder wanting to reflect their mark in a domain. Quite simply it is not the correct RPM for the claimant to use. Secondly the panellists conflation of passive holding with anticipatory cybersquatting is misguided and will have a chilling effect on innocent, non competing, non infringing businesses, this is against the whole raison d'être for new gTLDs. Thirdly whilst I appreciate these determinations were from the FORUM rather than your employer WIPO these three panellists are some of the most experienced with at least one being a lead panellist in 3 panel member UDRP cases, 1 being a panellist since 2001 and one having determined dozens of claims. Fourthly such clearly egregious decision making introduces unnecessary and unacceptable tension between the administrative and judicial routes. UDRP is already misaligned with ACPA in this regard and compounding this is unwise. Many complainants and quite a few IP attorneys it seems are not aware that attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is also a violation of ACPA. For the unwary correctly resolving these matters is expensive. https://domainnamewire.com/2019/09/05/it-cost-480843-to-defend-imi-com/ This working group has a responsibility to provide leadership and clarity in these matters. Yours sincerely, Paul p.s. Poncelet, great to see you again it’s been too long! On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 6:21 PM Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@ymca.gm> wrote:
++1 thanks Kathy and I concur with Brian
Kind regards
Poncelet
On Wednesday, 11 December 2019, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Thanks Kathy, and I agree that the WG review and resulting proposed fixes and recommendations already speak to this concern. Brian
Sent from my WIPO mobile
On 11 December 2019 at 18:25:38 CET, Kathy Kleiman < kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Dear Paul,
I am writing as co-chair, but without the opportunity to talk with my other co-chairs. We did a complete investigation of each and every one of the URS cases which had taken place up to a certain time (I believe it was the end of 2018). Each and every case was reviewed by someone in this WG. Everyone had the chance to participate. Harvard Law School further created detailed tables.
Then we had to stop our research and analysis. At a certain point, you have to draw a line a line and move on. In this case, we moved on to our work on the TM Notices, Sunrise Periods and Trademark Clearinghouse reviews.
*But we have a timeline, and the GNSO Council needs our work in Phase One to include in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.* All of the cases you mention, and which we appreciate, fall after our window of analysis.
Quick personal note that I think our recommendations clearly address at least one issue that you raise in your email. One, and I quote, "Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed" ==> this is being addressed in a URS recommendation going out for public comment.
Best, Kathy On 12/11/2019 11:49 AM, Paul Tattersfield wrote:
Dear All,
Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this will be allowed to happen again.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
*cfa.club * Creation date July 17, 2017 Registrar www.eachnic.com Complainant submitted September 19, 2019 Commencement October 7, 2019 Default Date October 22, 2019 Domain Suspended October 25, 2019 Examiner Flip Jan Claude Petillion https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Hao Ming of Beijing, International, CN. Rationale *The Complainant holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However, the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active*
* website. * *It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. *
*Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven * *cfa.community* Creation date September 24, 2019 Registrar domains.google.com Complainant Submitted October 8, 2019 Commencement October 8, 2019 Default Date October 23, 2019 Domain Suspended October 23, 2019 Examiner Dawn Osborne https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA Rationale Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not even mention of what was being claimed
*cfa.plus * Creation date September 25, 2019 Registrar www.west.cn Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Response Date October 29, 2019 Domain Suspended October 29, 2019 Examiner David L. Kreider https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Peng Cheng Li of He Nan, International, CN Rationale *“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (**李鹏程* *), by the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus> litigation only”. *
*Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location* *, or both. *
*cfa.business* Creation date August 28, 2019 Registrar www.godaddy.com Complainant Submitted October 16, 2019 Commencement October 17, 2019 Default Date November 1, 2019 Domain Returned November 1, 2019 Examiner Richard W. Hill https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm Claimant CFA Institute of Charlottesville Represented DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington Respondent Domains By Proxy, LLC / DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US Rationale “*Complainant states: "By creating confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of bad faith registration." Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”*
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing listGNSO-RPM-WG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
<ATT00001.txt>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>*
*https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/ <https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/> *
*www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>*
participants (4)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
Kathy Kleiman -
Paul Tattersfield -
Poncelet Ileleji