[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

Fri Sep 23 15:53:34 UTC 2016

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 at 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Steve Levy
<slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
Date:  Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM
To:  Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Rebecca Tushnet
<rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley"
<Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
<gnso-rpm-wg at 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 at 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin
> <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:39 AM
> To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>, "Silver, Bradley"
> <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-rpm-wg at 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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:10 AM
> To: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg at 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 at timewarner.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM
> To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg at 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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:26 AM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at 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 at 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 at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160923/519162f0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small[2].png
Type: image/png
Size: 17053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160923/519162f0/AccentLawLogoNEWVerySmall2-0001.png>