[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives

Paul Tattersfield gpmgroup at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 21:05:37 UTC 2016 

I also agree with Brad & Jeff.



If ICANN deems it necessary to have a sunrise period for whatever reasons,
then there should be mechanisms to prevent that period being gamed



1)       The prices should be in-line with pricing outside of that period.

2)       There should be mechanisms put in place to prevent gaming where
marks are registered with no underlying goods and services to be infringed
simply for front running the general release.



 Yours sincerely,





Paul

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>
wrote:

> To reiterate and then I will try to stop: "deep concern" and "related to a
> right granted by national law" are very different things.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Georgetown Law
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org> wrote:
>
> I also agree with Brad and Jeff.  This pricing issue is a deep concern for
> INTA members.
>
>
>
> Lori S. Schulman
>
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>
> *International Trademark Association (INTA)*
>
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kiran
> Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 3:31 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
>
>
> Agree with Jeff and Bradley below.
>
> Kiran Malancharuvil
> Policy Counselor
> MarkMonitor
> 415-419-9138 (m)
>
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mail
> to:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com%3e%3e> wrote:
>
> We also need to look at examples out there where it is not just premium
> pricing of domains, but there was at least one case (.feedback) that said
> if you are a trademark owner (whether or not purchased in the Sunrise or
> after), the price is $X, but if you are not the trademark owner, then your
> price is $Y, where $Y was thousands of dollars less.
>
> See: http://domainincite.com/19560-forget-sucks-feedback-will-
> drive-trademark-owners-nuts-all-over-again and
> http://domainincite.com/19615-feedback-regs-fox-trademark-
> to-itself-during-sunrise
>
> I believe the policies of .sucks and .feedback need to be discussed. It is
> one thing to have premium pricing on a name whereby any purchaser of the
> name would have to pay the same price (even if high); but, it is another
> thing to have different prices for a name depending on who the purchaser is
> (discrimination amongst purchasers). That I do believe is in our scope.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>
> <jeff.neuman at valideus.com%3e> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailt
> o:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com%3e>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:20 PM
> To: Rebecca Tushnet <rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu<mail
> to:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>> <rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu%3e%3e>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
> “If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names have led to
> infringement, I hope we will be able to collect evidence of that.”
>
> Agreed that we should seek this type of data, certainly anecdotal and more
> comprehensive if available.
>
> 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: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu
> <rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:16 PM
> To: Phil Corwin
> Cc: Silver, Bradley; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> Subject: Re: TMCH review objectives
>
> And is the additional system cost (one component of effectiveness) of
> individualized review of pricing worth this hypothetical increased risk of
> later infringement? If post-Sunrise registrations of expensive domain names
> have led to infringement, I hope we will be able to collect evidence of
> that. Likewise with the hypothetical effect of encountering an unregistered
> domain in a new gTLD. In an age of search engines, I thought we had gotten
> past the idea that a consumer would type in a domain name and then give up
> if no website, or a nonconfusing but non-trademark owner website, resolves.
> I also highly doubt there's evidence that consumers think less of a
> trademark owner for not registering every variation.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Georgetown Law
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@
> vlaw-dc.com>> <psc at vlaw-dc.com%3e%3e> wrote:
> 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>
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> 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 at timewarner.com
> <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM
> To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> 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 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> 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 at timewarner.com<
> mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com> <ITServices at timewarner.com%3e>
>
> =================================================================
>
> =================================================================
> 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
> ________________________________
> 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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org%3e>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160923/9f6f1109/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list