Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”. Regards, Steve [cid:14EF9B53-43F8-43BA-A891-429046E0AED9] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public. This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders. From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others. Yours, Rebecca Tushnet Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
Steven, With all due respect when will ³protection² find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner who is only one of a number of users is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE. Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul@law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I¹d also like to add my view that ³protection² can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one¹s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of ³protection².
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH¹s goal of ³protection² against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH¹s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH¹s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours, Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-) Volker Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating:
Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
*Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)*
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es>
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com <mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com <mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
*Accent Law Group, Inc.* 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com <mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu <mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com <mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell***
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM *To:* Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against /what/, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
*From:*Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM *To:* Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
================================================================= */Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com <mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> /*
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker Granted that Is correct but that is the result of a marketing decision taken long ago by the trademark holder. I'm not sure we should be considering global policies to counter the impact of that long ago decision. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating: Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours, Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Volker, Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter! Steve From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-) Volker Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating: Steven, With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE. Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es<http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”. Regards, Steve [cid:14EF9B53-43F8-43BA-A891-429046E0AED9] Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com<mailto:slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com<http://www.accentlawgroup.com/> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu<mailto:rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public. This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall? Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders. From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others. Yours, Rebecca Tushnet Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com> ================================================================= ================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
:-) 2 points. From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating:
Steven,
With all due respect when will ³protection² find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner who is only one of a number of users is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I¹d also like to add my view that ³protection² can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one¹s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of ³protection².
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH¹s goal of ³protection² against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH¹s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH¹s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours, Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
2 points awarded notwithstanding, I did use NIKE as a famous brand example. We cannot say that about every trademark that the rights holder perceives as ³famous². From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating:
Steven,
With all due respect when will ³protection² find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner who is only one of a number of users is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I¹d also like to add my view that ³protection² can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one¹s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of ³protection².
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/> ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH¹s goal of ³protection² against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH¹s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH¹s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours, Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown Law 703 593 6759 ================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello everybody, I just want to say that according to Paris Convention a trademark become famous when it's recognized and determined as one from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and no when the rights holder believes or perceives it. Not even a Panelist in a UDRP/LDRP procedure could determine if the trademark is famous or not. Best regards, Salvador. 2016-09-26 13:00 GMT-05:00 Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>:
2 points awarded notwithstanding, I did use NIKE as a famous brand example. We cannot say that about every trademark that the rights holder perceives as “famous”.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy < slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating:
Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
*Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)*
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy < slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet < rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" < Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
*Accent Law Group, Inc.* 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" < Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM *To:* Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against *what*, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
*From:* Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>] *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM *To:* Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
================================================================= *Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com <ITServices@timewarner.com> *
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP <https://twitter.com/SCH_IP> Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
Salvador, I would like to correct your statement. A "famous" trademark is one that transcends the specific classes of goods/services for which it was originally registered so as to be a recognized source indicator for other unrelated goods/services. It may be so famous as to effectively preclude a third party from using the same mark on unrelated goods/services. Think NIKE registered for sports gear now being applied to cars or Catapillar (tractors) as applied to shoes, pants etc.... Paul Keating
On 26 Sep 2016, at 8:12 PM, Salvador Camacho Hernández <salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everybody,
I just want to say that according to Paris Convention a trademark become famous when it's recognized and determined as one from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and no when the rights holder believes or perceives it. Not even a Panelist in a UDRP/LDRP procedure could determine if the trademark is famous or not.
Best regards,
Salvador.
2016-09-26 13:00 GMT-05:00 Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>:
2 points awarded notwithstanding, I did use NIKE as a famous brand example. We cannot say that about every trademark that the rights holder perceives as “famous”.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating: Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
Whether a trademark is legally “famous” may depend upon the laws of the relevant jurisdiction. Under U.S. law at least, here is the definition of a “famous” trademark: a mark is famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner. In determining whether a mark possesses the requisite degree of recognition, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following: (i) The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, whether advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties. (ii) The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark. (iii) The extent of actual recognition of the mark. This definition applies to claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Doug From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul@law.es ZIMBRA Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 2:37 PM To: Salvador Camacho Hernández <salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives Salvador, I would like to correct your statement. A "famous" trademark is one that transcends the specific classes of goods/services for which it was originally registered so as to be a recognized source indicator for other unrelated goods/services. It may be so famous as to effectively preclude a third party from using the same mark on unrelated goods/services. Think NIKE registered for sports gear now being applied to cars or Catapillar (tractors) as applied to shoes, pants etc.... Paul Keating On 26 Sep 2016, at 8:12 PM, Salvador Camacho Hernández <salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com <mailto:salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> > wrote: Hello everybody, I just want to say that according to Paris Convention a trademark become famous when it's recognized and determined as one from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and no when the rights holder believes or perceives it. Not even a Panelist in a UDRP/LDRP procedure could determine if the trademark is famous or not. Best regards, Salvador.
Hi Paul, Sorry for the possible misunderstood on my comment. I agree with you on what you state about the "famous" trademark. Indeed the famous TM trascends the original and specific goods/services for which the TM was registered. What I meant, it was that the recognition of that trascendence has to be issued by an jurisdictional authority on the matter (USPTO, IMPI, INAPI, etc) and not only based on what the rights holder believes. Best, Salvador. 2016-09-26 13:37 GMT-05:00 Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es>:
Salvador,
I would like to correct your statement.
A "famous" trademark is one that transcends the specific classes of goods/services for which it was originally registered so as to be a recognized source indicator for other unrelated goods/services. It may be so famous as to effectively preclude a third party from using the same mark on unrelated goods/services. Think NIKE registered for sports gear now being applied to cars or Catapillar (tractors) as applied to shoes, pants etc....
Paul Keating
On 26 Sep 2016, at 8:12 PM, Salvador Camacho Hernández < salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everybody,
I just want to say that according to Paris Convention a trademark become famous when it's recognized and determined as one from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and no when the rights holder believes or perceives it. Not even a Panelist in a UDRP/LDRP procedure could determine if the trademark is famous or not.
Best regards,
Salvador.
2016-09-26 13:00 GMT-05:00 Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>:
2 points awarded notwithstanding, I did use NIKE as a famous brand example. We cannot say that about every trademark that the rights holder perceives as “famous”.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy < slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating:
Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
*Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)*
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy < slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet < rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" < Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq.
*Accent Law Group, Inc.* 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147
United States
Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com <slevy@accentlawgroup.com>
Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" < Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic ann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM *To:* Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against *what*, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
*From:* Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>] *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM *To:* Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@ic ann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rebecca Tushnet *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
================================================================= *Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com <ITServices@timewarner.com> *
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. ================================================================= ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP <https://twitter.com/SCH_IP> Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP <https://twitter.com/SCH_IP> Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
Completely agree. Paul Keating
On 26 Sep 2016, at 9:28 PM, Salvador Camacho Hernández <salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the possible misunderstood on my comment. I agree with you on what you state about the "famous" trademark. Indeed the famous TM trascends the original and specific goods/services for which the TM was registered.
What I meant, it was that the recognition of that trascendence has to be issued by an jurisdictional authority on the matter (USPTO, IMPI, INAPI, etc) and not only based on what the rights holder believes.
Best,
Salvador.
2016-09-26 13:37 GMT-05:00 Paul@law.es ZIMBRA <paul@law.es>:
Salvador,
I would like to correct your statement.
A "famous" trademark is one that transcends the specific classes of goods/services for which it was originally registered so as to be a recognized source indicator for other unrelated goods/services. It may be so famous as to effectively preclude a third party from using the same mark on unrelated goods/services. Think NIKE registered for sports gear now being applied to cars or Catapillar (tractors) as applied to shoes, pants etc....
Paul Keating
On 26 Sep 2016, at 8:12 PM, Salvador Camacho Hernández <salvadorcamachohernandez@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everybody,
I just want to say that according to Paris Convention a trademark become famous when it's recognized and determined as one from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and no when the rights holder believes or perceives it. Not even a Panelist in a UDRP/LDRP procedure could determine if the trademark is famous or not.
Best regards,
Salvador.
2016-09-26 13:00 GMT-05:00 Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>:
2 points awarded notwithstanding, I did use NIKE as a famous brand example. We cannot say that about every trademark that the rights holder perceives as “famous”.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:24 PM To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker,
Having represented Nike in some of its anticybersquatting efforts, I wish I had an extra dollar for every time a domain owner instantly became a big fan of this Greek goddess when responding to my demand letter!
Steve
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:49 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
And even with this famous name, there is a wikipedia disambiguation page of over half a dozen other uses which may have something to do with this famous mark originally being the name of a Greek Goddess personifying victory. ;-)
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 17:53 schrieb Paul Keating: Steven,
With all due respect when will “protection” find its limits. Just because the right to use something is high does not equate with a denial of rights. Unless a domain name is subject to only one passible use (that of the brand owner) and no other uses, then it remains an asset of the registry to sell as it deems fit. If the brand owner – who is only one of a number of users – is unable to afford the price, such is life. AND when I say one possible use I really mean it. The name would not only have to be coined but famous. A coined term is one that was invented but history teaches that inventions are not unique. They are often repeated. A famous mark is one that transcends use and extents to completely unrelated commercial monetization. An example – one of the few I can think of - would be NIKE.
Lets stay focussed and reasonable please. Just because something is expensive does not equate to something that infringes.
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy <slevy@accentlawgroup.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I’d also like to add my view that “protection” can take a number of different forms. Stopping someone from infringing upon one’s trademark is the most obvious one but protecting brand owners from having their trademarks held for ransom at an unreasonably high premium price is another. If, for example, [brand].TLD is priced at US$50000 as a premium domain it effectively prevents the brand owner from purchasing that domain and the website remains either non-resolved or perhaps as a registry advertisement. The public may then see this site and mistakenly believe that the brand owner has either gone out of business or is not devoting sufficient resources to promoting its brand online. Preventing this type of negative impact on the brand is another form of “protection”.
Regards, Steve
Steven M. Levy, Esq. Accent Law Group, Inc. 301 Fulton St. Philadelphia, PA 19147 United States Phone: +1-215-327-9094 Email: slevy@AccentLawGroup.com Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ ________________________________________ Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26@law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
I believe I just addressed that question in the email I posted – if unreasonably high sunrise pricing deters a rights holder from registering a domain corresponding to a verified TM registered in the TMCH then it may be registered in the general availability period by an infringer, which in turn imposes a variety of costs on the TM owner (including those of bringing a subsequent URS, UDRP, or judicial action) and also creates the possibility of confusion and harm for the general public.
This is not to say that all Premium pricing is unreasonable, as it is generally recognized that certain words and terms have inherent additional value in the DNS context – it really requires a case by case analysis.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
TMCH’s goal of “protection” against what, though? How does high pricing contribute to trademark infringement? High pricing may deter purchases of domain names, no doubt, but with what result for the system overall?
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
From: Silver, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Silver@timewarner.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: TMCH review objectives
I would add that the question of pricing feeds into the concept of effectiveness, because if the TMCH is serving as a database for registries to target brand owners for higher pricing based on the value of their brands, then this is antithetical to the TMCH’s primary goal to provide protection for verified right holders.
From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Hello, all. On the last WG call, concerns about pricing of domain names during the Sunrise Period arose. This led to a question of whether pricing is within the remit of this WG – and the broader question of what the purpose of our TMCH review is. There seemed to be a desire to focus on the TMCH’s effectiveness. The predicate question, then, is: effectiveness at what? Here are some suggestions for discussion: (1) minimizing the cost of operating the system for all concerned; (2) minimizing the number of actions that ultimately need to be brought against infringing registrants; (3) minimizing the number of noninfringing registrants whose legitimate uses are blocked or deterred. If the system is reasonably balancing those objectives, I suggest, then it is effective; potential changes should be directly related to improving performance on one or more of these metrics without unduly hampering the others.
Yours,
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759
================================================================= Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack. If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com
=================================================================
================================================================= This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding, or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies from your computer or storage system. Thank you. =================================================================
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13069 - Release Date: 09/23/16
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
-- Salvador Camacho Hernández Domain Names Consultant Mail: salvador@proteccion.digital Twitter: @SCH_IP Websites: proteccion.digital nombresdedominio.guru
participants (6)
-
Doug Isenberg -
Paul Keating -
Paul＠law.es ZIMBRA
-
Salvador Camacho Hernández -
Steve Levy -
Volker Greimann