Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
+ 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos
On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com> <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph:
"Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too."
I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it).
I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone.
So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any).
Best, Paul
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Hi J. Scott,
Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush.
Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too.
If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else.
The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
!DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993!
+1 Marie, trademarks are at their heart are for consumer protection. Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:36 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
+1 Marie. Unfortunately, domain names are much more like “property” than trademarks since each one can only be owned by a single entity. Hence, the fundamental difference and source of conflict between the “ownership” and protection of trademarks and domain names, and the use and protection of speech and consumers. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Colin O'Brien Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; policy@paulmcgrady.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie, trademarks are at their heart are for consumer protection. Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:36 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
+ 1 Thanks, Michael – although I wonder if the differences are really as vast as they may seem. I agree with you that only one registrant can ever register a domain name, and for that reason alone, domain names are unique. However, and at the risk of completely splitting hairs here – on a Friday, no less – I don’t believe we can say that domain names themselves are really property, at least not in the sense that the investor/reseller/scalper crowd would have us all believe. One cannot “own” a domain name any more than one can “own” a telephone number. Rather, courts and other governmental/judicial bodies have recognized the right to register a domain name as an asset to be bought and sold, not the underlying domain itself. I make this hair-splitting point simply for the purpose of trying to reign in what some people feel is an unfettered right to domain names, without regard to competing, valid rights – such as the right of the public not to be misled as to the source or purpose of a domain name (again re phishing, malware, etc.). Like most other “rights”, the right to register a domain name is not absolute. Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Graham (ELCA) Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:54 AM To: Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; policy@paulmcgrady.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie. Unfortunately, domain names are much more like “property” than trademarks since each one can only be owned by a single entity. Hence, the fundamental difference and source of conflict between the “ownership” and protection of trademarks and domain names, and the use and protection of speech and consumers. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Colin O'Brien Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie, trademarks are at their heart are for consumer protection. Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:36 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
@Marina: Not hair splitting at all – a good point. And, actually, one that can be made about trademarks as well: No one really OWNS a trademark – they enjoy the goodwill that attaches to the trademark and, since governments recognize a need to protect consumers and commerce, they can register the trademark. But once they cease use of the mark – or don’t use it for a particular time – they also lose rights in the mark. So both are limited as to time, platform, and use. Michael R. From: Marina Lewis [mailto:marina@dns-law.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 11:11 AM To: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expedia.com>; Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; policy@paulmcgrady.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 Thanks, Michael – although I wonder if the differences are really as vast as they may seem. I agree with you that only one registrant can ever register a domain name, and for that reason alone, domain names are unique. However, and at the risk of completely splitting hairs here – on a Friday, no less – I don’t believe we can say that domain names themselves are really property, at least not in the sense that the investor/reseller/scalper crowd would have us all believe. One cannot “own” a domain name any more than one can “own” a telephone number. Rather, courts and other governmental/judicial bodies have recognized the right to register a domain name as an asset to be bought and sold, not the underlying domain itself. I make this hair-splitting point simply for the purpose of trying to reign in what some people feel is an unfettered right to domain names, without regard to competing, valid rights – such as the right of the public not to be misled as to the source or purpose of a domain name (again re phishing, malware, etc.). Like most other “rights”, the right to register a domain name is not absolute. Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Graham (ELCA) Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:54 AM To: Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com<mailto:colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com>>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie. Unfortunately, domain names are much more like “property” than trademarks since each one can only be owned by a single entity. Hence, the fundamental difference and source of conflict between the “ownership” and protection of trademarks and domain names, and the use and protection of speech and consumers. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Colin O'Brien Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie, trademarks are at their heart are for consumer protection. Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien [PartridgePartners_logo_final (002)] 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:36 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
Exactly - well said. Thanks, Michael. Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Apr 14, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>> wrote: @Marina: Not hair splitting at all – a good point. And, actually, one that can be made about trademarks as well: No one really OWNS a trademark – they enjoy the goodwill that attaches to the trademark and, since governments recognize a need to protect consumers and commerce, they can register the trademark. But once they cease use of the mark – or don’t use it for a particular time – they also lose rights in the mark. So both are limited as to time, platform, and use. Michael R. From: Marina Lewis [mailto:marina@dns-law.com] Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 11:11 AM To: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>>; Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com<mailto:colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com>>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 Thanks, Michael – although I wonder if the differences are really as vast as they may seem. I agree with you that only one registrant can ever register a domain name, and for that reason alone, domain names are unique. However, and at the risk of completely splitting hairs here – on a Friday, no less – I don’t believe we can say that domain names themselves are really property, at least not in the sense that the investor/reseller/scalper crowd would have us all believe. One cannot “own” a domain name any more than one can “own” a telephone number. Rather, courts and other governmental/judicial bodies have recognized the right to register a domain name as an asset to be bought and sold, not the underlying domain itself. I make this hair-splitting point simply for the purpose of trying to reign in what some people feel is an unfettered right to domain names, without regard to competing, valid rights – such as the right of the public not to be misled as to the source or purpose of a domain name (again re phishing, malware, etc.). Like most other “rights”, the right to register a domain name is not absolute. Marina Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Graham (ELCA) Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:54 AM To: Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com<mailto:colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com>>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie. Unfortunately, domain names are much more like “property” than trademarks since each one can only be owned by a single entity. Hence, the fundamental difference and source of conflict between the “ownership” and protection of trademarks and domain names, and the use and protection of speech and consumers. Michael R. From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Colin O'Brien Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:48 AM To: 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH +1 Marie, trademarks are at their heart are for consumer protection. Colin Thomas Jefferson O’Brien <image001.jpg> 321 North Clark Street, Suite 720 Chicago, Illinois 60654 312-634-9503 http://www.partridge.partners/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.partridge.partners_&d=CwMGaQ&c=kqD9Q09X0_hF3XfnL01GEfIkP9-W7TXn6puQBrgMIlo&r=9-_oVnIkTFYkZzv8b5PGVZckJXV9d_c5sI_KGA4CFMQ&m=Dun2gPGoNhOgvtpfJFgCNhsEsF1r1qZZAGfEZ63PcqU&s=dcEs8IDDNmTr1H9cTMbFBrHidXnGIT9Xd63iQR0KkHI&e=> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:36 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH + 1 and thanks Paul. TMs are a sign to a consumer of origin, and trust. I still have basic issues understanding why, having built and developed a brand based on trust, we should be the ones to pay, again, to prevent consumer harm caused by someone else choosing to maximise their financial gain at our expense, without any benefit to consumer welfare. Marie Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos On 14 Apr 2017, at 19:15, <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! _______________________________________________ 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 !DSPAM:58f103f417161029067993! ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________
Paul +1. The only potential “winner” in George’s Landrush auction scenario would be the speculators – the losers would include trademark owners who wish to offer goods and services on the internet and aid consumers and civil society in locating them, and (even more so) consumers and civil society which could either not be able to find the goods and services for which they are searching, are directed to the wrong ones, and must pay increased cost of goods, services and confidence that entities must charge due to the cost of participation or defense in such a system. Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy@paulmcgrady.com Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:16 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
+1 on this from me also! Brian Scarpelli Senior Policy Counsel 517-507-1446<tel:517-507-1446> | bscarpelli@actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Graham (ELCA) Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 2:11 PM To: policy@paulmcgrady.com; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Paul +1. The only potential “winner” in George’s Landrush auction scenario would be the speculators – the losers would include trademark owners who wish to offer goods and services on the internet and aid consumers and civil society in locating them, and (even more so) consumers and civil society which could either not be able to find the goods and services for which they are searching, are directed to the wrong ones, and must pay increased cost of goods, services and confidence that entities must charge due to the cost of participation or defense in such a system. Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:16 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Paul and Michael Marina A. Lewis (415) 290-1245 marina@dns-law.com<mailto:marina@dns-law.com> On Apr 14, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expedia.com<mailto:migraham@expedia.com>> wrote: Paul +1. The only potential “winner” in George’s Landrush auction scenario would be the speculators – the losers would include trademark owners who wish to offer goods and services on the internet and aid consumers and civil society in locating them, and (even more so) consumers and civil society which could either not be able to find the goods and services for which they are searching, are directed to the wrong ones, and must pay increased cost of goods, services and confidence that entities must charge due to the cost of participation or defense in such a system. Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:16 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Thanks George. I appreciate the candor contained in your paragraph: "Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too." I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it). I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone. So, can we please get back to discussing incremental, implementable improvements to the RPMs (if any). Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Date: Thu, April 13, 2017 4:20 pm To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Hi J. Scott, Trimming the part re: confidentiality of the existing TMCH, to not get side-tracked: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>> wrote:
1.) A party wanting to speculate with a name and wanting to ensure it gets the name files for a trademark registration is a jurisdiction where proving use to obtain registration is not require (96% of the jurisdictions). This party gets such a registration, dummies up some use and registers the trademark in the Clearinghouse; or 2.) A trademark owner has taken the decision that it must own its trademark in all new TLDs. While perfectly within the rights of a registrant in the Clearinghouse, this may be seen as overreaching by many parties.
The examples that you and Rebecca and George have mentions (e.g., CLOUD, HOTEL) are dictionary terms. These could be genuine trademarks, but could also be more in the Category 1 above. So it seems to me that we need to come up with reasonable, efficient solutions that will solve these two issues. I don’t think you need to know the top 500 trademarks registered in the TMCH.
....So, let’s work on the parts where we have clear consensus.
Under my proposal (no sunrise, straight to landrush), there is no TMCH at all, so those iffy TM registrations in scenario 1 don't provide any benefit to the 'gamer'. One wouldn't need any TM at all to participate in the landrush. Thus, scenario 1 gaming is eliminated, since there's no presentation of any TMs at all to gain access to landrush. Under scenario 2, that ("legitimate", to separate it from scenario 1) trademark owner can simply outbid (if need be, if others even desire the term) the competition in the landrush. I wouldn't call that "overreaching" to try to do so under that level playing field, the TM doesn't give them any "bidding advantage" -- they'd have to pay more than anyone else, using money (instead of being giving "first dibs" under sunrise). Legitimate registrants without a TM are able to bid too. If Apple (the iPhone maker) wanted to outbid every single entity for Apple.menu, or Apple.recipes, they'd have the right to try. It's likely a waste of shareholders money, but at least every other good faith registrant had an equal chance on a level playing field to spend their money to do the same. I would see absolutely nothing wrong if they outbid everyone else. The list of top 500 TM claims terms is useful to get a sense as to whether people are trying to register terms like Verizon, Google, Yahoo, etc., or if they're trying to register common terms. So far, it seems from the evidence that we do have (the top 10), that people are trying to register common terms. In other words, are the TMCH claims notices scaring off mostly cybersquatters, or are they scaring off registrants who want to register common terms that are widely used by many entities? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
Hello, On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 1:15 PM, <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
I will have to say "no thanks" to dismantling the RPMs so that they can be reassembled to ensure that every Sunrise is an auction-based dollar squeeze of brand owners. I understand certain registries may be unhappy with how few Sunrise registrations trademark owners bought in the first round as many were financially dependent on trademark owners showing up to purchase them (even though we all warned applicants not to count on it).
I'm not a registry, nor am I associated with any. As I've said, I have no interest at all in registering new gTLDs. If I was to act in my own personal interests, I'd say "keep the status quo", since the status quo has helped kill new gTLDs (i.e. .com has thrived). It would be hard to design a worse new gTLD program than exists at present.
I was secretly hoping that the "dismantle the RPMs" campaign had some free-speech motivation that, after several weeks, had yet to locate its rationale. Clearly, this is just about money for certain registry operators (its almost always about money...sigh). One good thing - at least the free speech-ish veneer is gone.
See above. In a capitalist society, once the "first dibs" is eliminated by killing sunrise, and it's straight to land rush, then willingness to pay (auction) is an entirely fair method to allocate a scarce resource. If a registry operator wanted to set a $1 billion/domain price in sunrise, that would be a quite effective method of eliminating the negative effects of sunrises, a legal way to comply with their obligations to ICANN (while thumbing their noses at the bad policy). If I was running a registry, and wanted to promote registrant-friendly policies that reduce gaming, that's exactly what I would do, to eliminate the inherent unfairness and gaming. Let folks with real disputes solve it in court or UDRP or whatever, post-registration. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (7)
-
Brian Scarpelli -
Colin O'Brien -
George Kirikos -
Marie Pattullo -
Marina Lewis -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
policy＠paulmcgrady.com