[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Mon Sep 26 10:11:16 UTC 2016
While I do feel that some of the pricing schemes that we have seen in
the last round could certainly be classified as gaming the system and
potentially problematic, I am not yet convinced that they constitute
abuse. After all, in the offline world many salesmen base the price of
their product or service on the maximum of what they expect the customer
is willing to pay. The same product or service can be priced differently
for any number of reasons, including on how rich the potential buyer
appears to the seller.
Not saying this is good or bad, but definitely something that is common
practice outside and inside the domain world.
Best,
Volker
Am 23.09.2016 um 22:50 schrieb Lori Schulman:
>
> As Jeff pointed out, it’s not a question of keeping prices low or
> high, it’s about discriminatory pricing based on whether a national
> right is granted in a name. I agree with you that the right is
> separate from the pricing but when the prices are manipulated based on
> an exercise of a right it becomes a concern. There is a built in
> deterrent to using the TMCH based on a right when that use then leads
> to extraordinary pricing.
>
> Lori S. Schulman
>
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>
> *International Trademark Association (INTA)*
>
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
>
> *From:*Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 4:42 PM
> *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
> *Cc:* Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>; Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
> I’m not sure what you’re saying. I am asking why keeping prices low
> (but maybe not too low, given other comments) is a concern of the TMCH
> review, and asking for a reason related to the legal rights, as
> opposed to market interests, of trademark owners. If such a reason
> isn’t persuasively articulated, then I think that would give us an answer.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Georgetown Law
>
> 703 593 6759
>
> *From:*Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 4:37 PM
> *To:* Rebecca Tushnet
> *Cc:* Lori Schulman; Jeff Neuman; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
> I think it would probably be a mistake then, to try and exclude the
> issue from the discussion, if you wish to discuss it.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Kiran
>
> *From:*Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 1:35 PM
> *To:* Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
> <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>>
> *Cc:* Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>;
> Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
> I would then like that understanding of the law to be articulated,
> because I don't see it.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
>
> Georgetown Law
>
> Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos.
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil
> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
> <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Rebecca,
>
> I think it’s fair to say that the trademark community (through
> INTA and elsewhere) is basing their concerns on a full
> understanding of the law.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kiran
>
> *Kiran Malancharuvil*
>
> Policy Counselor
>
> MarkMonitor
>
> 415.222.8318 (t)
>
> 415.419.9138 (m)
>
> www.markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com/>
>
> *From:*Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 1:26 PM
> *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
> *Cc:* Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
> <mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>>; Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>;
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH review objectives
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 at icann.org>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
> <mailto: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><mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com%3e> or
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> <mailto: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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu><mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu>>
> <mailto:rlt26 at law.georgetown.edu%3e%3e>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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]
> 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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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 at vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
> <mailto: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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e>
> [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
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:00 AM
> To: Rebecca Tushnet; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org%3e>
> [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
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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><mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>
> <mailto: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><http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com%3e>
> 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><http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com%3e>
> 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><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
--
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 at 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 at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160926/82e34232/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list