<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>All, in relation to this discussion, it may be worth pointing out that the current status quo, which will be further codified as a result of the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process, is that the P/P service will publish the underlying customer information in Whois within two days of the UDDR being filed, unless the P/P service has no objection to being listed in the complaint/ruling as the registrant. If I understand the current proposal under consideration correctly, the idea is that an intermediate step could be introduced which may provide potential benefits to both parties as it would provide the requestor with additional information that may be helpful in deciding whether a UDRP/URS or alternative approach would be best suited to address the issue while the P/P customer information would only be disclosed to the requestor instead of published in Whois (and presumably it would also offer another path for remediation to the P/P customer instead of having to go directly to a UDRP which might require hiring of a lawyer?). Obviously there are other issues that need to be considered in relation to such a possible intermediate step such as how to avoid misuse, but I thought it might be helpful to consider this in light of the status quo.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika </div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday 29 October 2014 08:57<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Valeriya Sherman <<a href="mailto:VSherman@sgbdc.com">VSherman@sgbdc.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Mandatory Reveal in Context of Allegations that a Domain Name is Infringing Trademark<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 29 Oct 2014, at 3:38 am, Valeriya Sherman <<a href="mailto:VSherman@sgbdc.com">VSherman@sgbdc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><font size="3">Phil,</font></div><div><div><div><font size="3"><br></font></div><div><font size="3">With respect to Reveal in </font><font size="3">the </font><font size="3">context of allegations that a domain name is infringing, we advocat</font><font size="3">e </font><font size="3">Disclosure (to the Request</font><font size="3">o</font><font size="3">r
only) of information sufficient to </font><font size="3">help the Requestor determine</font><font size="3"> </font><font size="3">if further </font><font size="3">action </font><font size="3">against the Customer </font><font size="3">is</font><font size="3"> warranted</font><font size="3">. </font><font size="3"> This
is especially important i</font><font size="3">n the context of IP rights enforcement</font><font size="3">. </font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Allegations are not proof. If the domain name itself is regarded as possibly infringing, we have the UDRP and URS to determine it a domain name is actually infringing. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div><div><font size="3">Disclosure of the Customer's </font><font size="3">identity would</font><font size="3"> help the Requestor determine, before having to file a URS or UDRP, whether or not the Customer:</font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Sure. But being helpful to the Requestor is not, by itself, sufficient to justify disclosure.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3">-has legitimate rights in the domain name</font><font size="3">;</font></div><div align="justify"><font size="3">-is a cybersquatter; </font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>These are the exact questions the UDRP/URS are designed to answer. Wanting to know the answers to them before filing is putting the cart before the horse somewhat. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3">-is stockpiling domain names</font><font size="3">, without adding any website content</font><font size="3">; </font><font size="3">or</font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>The UDRP ultimately should succeed or fail based on the use of the domain in question, not what the registrant does with their other domains. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>And as Michele notes, website content is not the only use for domain names. </div><div>( eg I have a few friends who have used the adorably geeky rcpt.to domain for email only for over a decade now). </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Also, if the domain owner is actively using sub-domains of their domain, it may not necessarily be obvious to the requester.</div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3">-has prior UDRP decisions against him or her</font><font size="3">.</font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Again, sure, helpful to know before filing your UDRP, but is helpful to potential filers sufficient to overrule the obvious desire of the registrant for privacy? </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>A desire to disassociate particular domains used for specific purposes from their general domaining business may even be the reason for using a PPP. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3">All of the foregoing indicate bad faith registration and use of the domain name</font><font size="3">.</font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Your first two criteria are decisions that the UDRP/URS will rule on. Your second two criteria might indicate a general pattern of bad behaviour by the registrant, but do not mean that an individual
domain is part of that pattern of behaviour. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3"> </font><font size="3">As Paul pointed out on today's call, the Requestor must be able to </font><font size="3"> ascertain </font><font size="3"> this</font><font size="3"> information </font><font size="3"> before it is
obliged undergo the time and expense of bringing a UDRP or other legal proce</font><font size="3">eding</font><font size="3">. </font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I do not think this follows at all. There is a big difference between the requestor would like to, and the Requestor must be able to. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>I absolutely think that the Requestor should be able to use relay to request relevant information from the registrant. If the registrant wants to reply to a relayed request asserting their legitimate
right to the domain, good. But it is not obvious to me that disclosure is necessary, and I can think of many cases in which it might be problematic. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div align="justify"><font size="3">In that way, </font><font size="3">it can possibly avoid the need for a UDRP</font><font size="3">. And if it has to bring a UDRP, it can do so</font><font size="3"> in good faith. </font><font size="3">That is why Disclosure
is valuable in cases involving infringing domain names, not just infringing website content. </font></div><div><font size="3"><br></font></div><div><div><font size="3">To address another point that has come up in the past, Disclosure does not equate to a finding of guilt. Disclosure is not a remedy of the UDRP or the URS; </font><font size="3">it would occur </font><font size="3">before a case is decided
o</font><font size="3">n </font><font size="3"> the merits. </font></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Of course - but avoiding disclosure is, presumably, often a major reason for retaining a PPP in the first place, so we should not let it happen just because it would be beneficial to the requestor. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>Regards</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"></span>David</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" fpstyle="1" ocsi="0" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="direction: ltr; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt;"><div><div><div><font size="3">It is my understanding that once a UDRP is filed</font><font size="3">,</font><font size="3"> one or both of the following generally happens: 1) registrar receives a request for information to confirm registrant, which it then sends to the
Complainant to amend the Complaint; or 2) the P/P Provider named in the complaint discloses or publishes the information. So</font><font size="3"> under the status quo,</font><font size="3"> there generally is a Reveal before a decision on the merits, but
only after the Requestor is forced to file a complaint, without essential information, at a high cost. As you correctly observed, not all allegations are successful -- we don't want to encourage more with a policy that requires premature legal actions. </font></div><div><font size="3"><br></font></div><div><font size="3">Best regards,</font></div><div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman,serif"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><br></font></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman,serif"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Val</font></font></div></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Times New Roman,serif"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><br></font></font></div><div><br><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 13px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span dir="ltr">Valeriya Sherman<br>
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.<br>
1101 30th Street, N.W.<br>
Suite 120<br>
Washington, D.C. 20007<br>
Tel 202.944.3300<br>
Cell 303.589.7477<br></span><a target="_blank" href="mailto:vsherman@law.gwu.edu" tabindex="0" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);">vsherman@sgbdc.com</a></font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;"><hr tabindex="-1"><div id="divRpF527131" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
on behalf of Volker Greimann [<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>]<br><b>Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:37 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Mandatory Reveal in Context of Allegations that a Domain Name is Infringing Trademark<br></font><br></div><div></div><div>Hi Phil,<br><br>
I agree that a mere allegation is never enough for any form of required result. The bar needs to be set a lot higher, such as a sworn statement that includes legal consequences in case any part of it is incorrect that would allow the injured party and the provider
to sue the pants off of the complainant.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>
Also, the violation must be clear and obvious to an untrained third party observer, which is usually not the case in trademark violation due to the fact that trademark law is simply too complex for a layman to understand. And frankly, there also is no need
for an immediate reveal as there are, as you point out, already sufficient means to deal with such cases.<br><br>
As for content, that is a hosting issue outside the realm of ICANN. Go to the hosting provider instead. Infringing content has nothing to do with the domain name whatsoever.<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
Volker<br><br><br><div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.10.2014 17:30, schrieb Phil Corwin:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>I want to reiterate the concerns I raised during today's call about recommending a policy that would require a privacy/proxy provider (PPP) to reveal/disclose a registrant's identity and contact information based on a mere allegation that the domain name is infringing a trademark.
ICANN has established the URDP and URS to deal with such allegations. And every day WIPO, NAF, and other providers deny complainant allegations. In fact, it appears that instances of attempted reverse domain hijacking are on the rise.
A registrant who is targeted in a UDRP or URS has a choice of responding (in which case they will be revealing their identity) or to default and let the provider decide the allegation based solely upon the complaint. The proposed policy would compel disclosure of registrant data even when no UDRP, URS, or trademark infringement litigation was filed, or even if the allegation was subsequently found to fail to meet the required burden of proof.
I am not convinced by arguments that such mandatory disclosure might facilitate resolution absent the filing of arbitration or litigation. That can be accomplished by requiring the PPP to relay a cease-and-desist letter or other communication to the registrant. Mandatory disclosure based on an unproven allegation does not further the claimed goal.
Summing up, I believe that our WG should not create any new policy related to allegations of TM infringement by a domain name but should leave this issue to the new gTLD RPM and UDRP review that will be commencing next spring.
As for allegations of trademark infringement based upon a website's content that is a separate matter. However, I believe our discussions should recognize that PPPs are unlikely to weigh the merits of an allegation and that their likely default position will be to reveal registrant data once a complaint addresses all the relevant points required by any new policy on this subject. Given that likelihood, we should certainly consider the extent to which such a policy might be abused by a private sector or governmental actor.
Thank you for taking these views into account.
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
</pre><br><fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset><br><pre>_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></pre></blockquote><br><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net/" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rrpproxy.net/" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com/" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.brandshelter.com/" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu/" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net/" target="_blank">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rrpproxy.net/" target="_blank">www.RRPproxy.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com/" target="_blank">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.brandshelter.com/" target="_blank">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems" target="_blank">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu/" target="_blank">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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.
</pre></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org">Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></span></body></html>