Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call
WG members: A reference was made to UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, specifically that half of WIPO's cases last year involved new gTLDs. While such cases did comprise an increased case load share vs 2015 and 2014, it was in fact closer to 16%, see e.g., www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2017/article_0003.html<http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2017/article_0003.html>. (It could be that I said "15" at INTA, and it was heard as "50".) In any event, as to whether these are exact matches, merely anecdotally, while the vast majority of UDRP cases involving new gTLDs do appear to be exact matches (and in greater proportions than in non-new gTLD cases), this seems to be shifting slightly over time to increasingly include mark+term variations (and some "spanning the dot" cases). Also, even for UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, very few invoke mention of the TMCH or Claims Notices. Thanks for noting, and have a nice weekend. Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int<http://www.wipo.int/>
Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Also, even for UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, very few invoke mention of the TMCH or Claims Notices.
What precisely is "very few"? A quick search of decisions at UDRPSearch.com: http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=tmch&search=text&results=100&start=1 shows 100 matches for the term "TMCH" and 298 matches for "Clearinghouse" http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=clearinghouse&search=text&results=100... (there would be some overlap between those 2 sets of results, obviously) While a subset of the matches are for URS cases, there still appear to be more than just a "very few" cases. Furthermore, the above search results might understate the total, given that it only searches *decisions*, and does not have access to the raw complaints (i.e. a complainant might mention the TMCH, but that aspect might not be mentioned by the panel in its decision). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, Without looking at the links you provide, you will see that a search on WIPO's database for "TMCH" shows 33 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=tmch. A search for "Trademark Clearinghouse" shows 72 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=%22.... These results are against the almost 1,200 UDRP cases involving new gTLDs that have been filed at WIPO. (Even the 100 and 298 figures you cite below, which are presumably across all providers?) In my book, these statistics (0.0275 and 0.06 percent respectively) qualify as "very few". Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 11:19 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Also, even for UDRP cases involving new gTLDs, very few invoke mention of the TMCH or Claims Notices.
What precisely is "very few"? A quick search of decisions at UDRPSearch.com: http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=tmch&search=text&results=100&start=1 shows 100 matches for the term "TMCH" and 298 matches for "Clearinghouse" http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=clearinghouse&search=text&results=100... (there would be some overlap between those 2 sets of results, obviously) While a subset of the matches are for URS cases, there still appear to be more than just a "very few" cases. Furthermore, the above search results might understate the total, given that it only searches *decisions*, and does not have access to the raw complaints (i.e. a complainant might mention the TMCH, but that aspect might not be mentioned by the panel in its decision). 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
Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Without looking at the links you provide, you will see that a search on WIPO's database for "TMCH" shows 33 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=tmch.
A search for "Trademark Clearinghouse" shows 72 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=%22....
These results are against the almost 1,200 UDRP cases involving new gTLDs that have been filed at WIPO. (Even the 100 and 298 figures you cite below, which are presumably across all providers?)
In my book, these statistics (0.0275 and 0.06 percent respectively) qualify as "very few".
72 out of 1200 is 6 percent, not 0.06 percent. [similarly 33 out of 1200 is 2.75%, not 0.0275 percent] Whether that's a "few" or "very few" or "high" is subjective -- having the raw numbers is less subjective. I personally would not call 72 cases "very few" (and that wouldn't include NAF, etc., or the cases where it's mentioned in a complaint, but not in the decision] If 6% of UDRPs result in a RDNH result, some might call that "very high" --- it's all a matter of perspective. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers. In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:04 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Without looking at the links you provide, you will see that a search on WIPO's database for "TMCH" shows 33 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?q=tmch.
A search for "Trademark Clearinghouse" shows 72 hits: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/fulltext_decisions.jsp?tab=1&q=%22....
These results are against the almost 1,200 UDRP cases involving new gTLDs that have been filed at WIPO. (Even the 100 and 298 figures you cite below, which are presumably across all providers?)
In my book, these statistics (0.0275 and 0.06 percent respectively) qualify as "very few".
72 out of 1200 is 6 percent, not 0.06 percent. [similarly 33 out of 1200 is 2.75%, not 0.0275 percent] Whether that's a "few" or "very few" or "high" is subjective -- having the raw numbers is less subjective. I personally would not call 72 cases "very few" (and that wouldn't include NAF, etc., or the cases where it's mentioned in a complaint, but not in the decision] If 6% of UDRPs result in a RDNH result, some might call that "very high" --- it's all a matter of perspective. 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
Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers.
In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion.
So, if it's the WIPO position, that you "stand by", that 6% constitutes "very few", what does that imply about 1200 UDRPs for new gTLDs (or say 3000, to estimate the total including other providers, out of 25 million new gTLDs)? By my math, 3000 out of 25,000,000 or so new gTLD domains is 0.012 percent (i.e. 0.00012 x 100). It seems by your analysis, there's no real problem of cybersquatting. That would seem to argue for the elimination of the UDRP/URS and TMCH, given there are "very few" cases. Indeed, since 0.012 percent is 1/500th of 6%, it might be called "very, very, very few". Divide it by 4, even, given those cases are spread over approximately 4 years. Why are we investing such substantial time and effort, for a so-called "problem" which affects "very, very, very few" domain names??!!?? Those "very, very, very few" domain names would not cause any significant burden on the judicial system, spread over 100+ countries, given there are "very, very, very few" of them to begin with. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George K: Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners. If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue. The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc. The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years. To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters. We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others) I have seen are growing in scope. So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it. . Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:31 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Correction to UDRP data on 2-June TM Claims Sub-Team call Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Apologies if I incorrectly in your view added the word percent after the raw numbers.
In any event, I stand by what I said, and prefer not to engage in further discussion.
So, if it's the WIPO position, that you "stand by", that 6% constitutes "very few", what does that imply about 1200 UDRPs for new gTLDs (or say 3000, to estimate the total including other providers, out of 25 million new gTLDs)? By my math, 3000 out of 25,000,000 or so new gTLD domains is 0.012 percent (i.e. 0.00012 x 100). It seems by your analysis, there's no real problem of cybersquatting. That would seem to argue for the elimination of the UDRP/URS and TMCH, given there are "very few" cases. Indeed, since 0.012 percent is 1/500th of 6%, it might be called "very, very, very few". Divide it by 4, even, given those cases are spread over approximately 4 years. Why are we investing such substantial time and effort, for a so-called "problem" which affects "very, very, very few" domain names??!!?? Those "very, very, very few" domain names would not cause any significant burden on the judicial system, spread over 100+ countries, given there are "very, very, very few" of them to begin with. 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Hello, On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, I think you are going down the wrong rabbit hole and ignoring the big picture problem. The UDRP and URS are not the only aspects of this issue. They are tools that were created to help address problems of cyberquatting -- problems that include myriad ways that fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms have been perpetrated on consumers and brand owners.
Yes, I'm certainly aware that there are other ways to deal with the alleged problem. Fraud, counterfeiting, brand hijacking and other harms also exist in the offline world, and in the online world that don't involve domain names. Somehow, the world hasn't stopped spinning despite the lack of a special "RPM" that parallels the courts for those matters. Explain to me what is so special about domain names that a parallel justice system has arisen for what is at best a "de minimis" problem. Courts are certainly sufficient.
If I registered GeorgeKirikos.xyz and used the domain name to attempt to steal personal information from consumers or sell them junky products, you might have a different view of the issue.
No, not at all. There are courts to handle such situations.
The problem here is far greater than what you try to portray. Every day there are probably thousands of demand letters sent out around the world to try to address these problems, there are thousands of hours spent investigating and addressing these matters etc. The costs, needless to say, are staggering and substantially more than the small registration fee that many cybersquatters pay to get a domain name for the various schemes that we now have seen for over 20 years.
Yet, out of all these alleged cases, only a tiny, tiny fraction amount to more than a hill of beans, and are worth pursuing even using a relatively low cost procedure such as the UDRP. There are many, many personal and contractual disputes between individuals, companies, etc. (unrelated to domain names). By your reasoning "the problem" between those members of society are "far greater" than what appear in the court system. The costs of uploading a copyright infringing song or video are also quite low, in fact less than the cost of a domain name. The cost of sending out a defamatory email, tweet or Facebook post is essentially zero. Yet, there's no parallel system of justice in those cases, and instead bad guys are brought to court in the most egregious cases.
To put things in perspective, there are hundreds of millions of cars in the world and everyday millions if not billions or car rides are taken around the world. The percentage of accidents are relatively small by comparison, and the number of car accident matters that end up in court is even a much much smaller number. The point is that we don't sit around and say their shouldn't be laws that govern driving and/or to use to resolve car accidents, that there shouldn't be arbitration or court regimes for resolving car accidents etc or that we shouldn't have commissions rethinking or discussing the laws or ways to handle car accident matters. We have laws and procedures for handling these issue. The rights protection mechanisms are in the same fashion regimes put in place to help address ongoing problems -- real problems that exist and which by every legitimate study (FBI, Interpol and others) I have seen are growing in scope.
You seem to be arguing my position. I'm arguing that courts and laws are sufficient. Why is a non-profit corporation trying to reinvent the global judicial system? In the 1990s, an immature internet organization was pressured into developing a parallel justice system. 20 years later, the internet is far more mature, and has been incorporated into everyday life. No "special" forums are needed for "internet disputes". There's no need for the adjective "internet" -- they're just disputes, everyday disputes that can be handled by the "everyday" law. It's time to re-think mistakes of the past. If I smash into your car, you can't foist a parallel justice system upon me. And there are far more car accidents than there are domain name disputes.
So, in closing, while I understand that you may have hostility to the notion of RPMs, I would ask that you try to focus on the big picture here of the overall harm that has and is occurring and how best to address it.
And I would ask you to also keep an open mind, and think deeply about why this parallel system of justice exists, and who exactly it is serving. In many ways, it's a small "cottage industry", that serves a tiny percentage of vocal groups that have a selfish stake in perpetuating it. When one looks at the big picture, the world could certainly adjust if it disappeared. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
There is no parallel judicial system. There are additional tools that are ancillary to the traditional court system. Mandatory arbitration and mediation are used around the world everyday. It's been 19 years since the UDRP was implemented. Frankly, I am tired of the constant whining about RPMs. I get it you don't like them. Tough. They are here to stay so let's have a productive discussion with that reality as our baseline. Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 9, 2017, at 5:19 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
matters.
participants (4)
-
Beckham, Brian -
George Kirikos -
J. Scott Evans -
Nahitchevansky, Georges