[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Nahitchevansky, Georges ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
Thu Apr 13 17:26:43 UTC 2017


Paul:

With all due respect, you are just wrong on that point.  I and others have responded to the alleged “evidence.”  Go back and read all of the prior emails.  What evidence exists is that at most a speculator gamed the system with some filings, but not any evidence of widespread or systematic abuse of the TMCH by brand owners.  I guess it’s like the old political trick that if you repeat something that’s not true enough times, then folks will ultimately assume such is a fact.  Now we can go over all of this yet again, but I think that this is not productive.  If anything has been discredited, it is the insistence by you and others that there is a grand pattern of abuse by trademark owners.  Many have suggested that we focus on a fix/tweek to the system to address the speculator issue and the remedy of sunrise challenges.  I support such, but going on a fishing expedition with you on flimsy evidence is something that neither I nor others are willing to do.

From: Paul Keating [mailto:paul at law.es]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 1:11 PM
To: Nahitchevansky, Georges
Cc: J. Scott Evans; Bret Fausett; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

You keep referencing prior articulations.

"(for the reasons that have already been articulated extensively over the past several days)"

I hae not seen anything but assertions that have been completely discredited by the actual evidence.  Care to articulate?

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Apr 2017, at 18:23, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
I likewise agree.  If the goal is to give the aggrieved party a bona fide remedy, then there should be no issue.  The alleged abuse could be challenged just like tm owners can challenge alleged bogus and infringing domain names (as J.S has said).  I would support such a fix in the system.  But beyond that I see no need of opening the TMCH database (for the reasons that have already been articulated extensively over the past several days)


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 J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:08 PM
To: Bret Fausett; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Agreed. Obtaining the domain is the goal and the system should be designed to allow an aggrieved party to achieve that goal.


<image001.gif>

J. Scott Evans

408.536.5336 (tel)

345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544

Director, Associate General Counsel

408.709.6162 (cell)

San Jose, CA, 95110, USA

Adobe. Make It an Experience.

jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>

www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com>








From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 9:05 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

You’ll get no quarrel from me on imposing a cost. There are real costs involved for the companies that are required to review and adjudicate these disputes, so those costs should be reimbursed. I think challengers would be fine with the costs if the rewards were adjusted to ensure they had a better outcome (the domain in question). If they don’t get the domain at the end of the process, we are just counting on them to be working for the public good.

       Bret


On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>> wrote:

First, if a person challenges a Sunrise Registration at the registry and wins, they should be awarded the domain name. Why is it the cost of obtaining a domain name from a bad-faith Sunrise registrant gets everyone up in arms, but the enormous cost of preventing fraud and consumer confusion borne by trademark owners is seen as “just the cost of doing business in the online world”? I am all for finding cost-effective mechanism for a good faith registrant to obtain a domain name the was improperly registered under Sunrise, but there is going to be a cost.

J. Scott


<image001.gif>

J. Scott Evans

408.536.5336 (tel)

345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544

Director, Associate General Counsel

408.709.6162 (cell)

San Jose, CA, 95110, USA

Adobe. Make It an Experience.

jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>

www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com/>








From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:55 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

to the extent there are issues with the bona fides of individual registrations, the underlying trademark registration, and its recordal in the TMCH (www.trademark‑clearinghouse.com/dispute<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclearinghouse.com%2Fdispute&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd34c513ef31a415c792b08d482858b3f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636276957460088884&sdata=XBslWFTeBK1aE23jA09owCwmDa7iiVCRfvuev0%2FVVhU%3D&reserved=0>) are already subject to challenge.  Would you be able to help this group understand why you view these as insufficient measures?

I think any challenge mechanism that relies on good samaritans for enforcement is insufficient.

If I am pre-empted in my registration of “internet.TLD” or “online.TLD,” because someone had registered them in sunrise with “marks” that should not have been approved, my options at that point are to file a TMCH dispute, which costs at least $200 and will last for at least a month. At the end of that process, even if I am right, the trademark is marked as invalid, but I don’t get the domain name that I was blocked from registering.

If I want to file a sunrise challenge with the registry, depending on the registry’s policy, I may be awarded the domain name, but I am not guaranteed to be awarded the domain name. Those processes also take time and money.

So it really takes a determined individual or company, with time and money, to pursue these challenges.

If I were adjusting these processes for Round 2, I would give the complainant a presumptive right to register the challenged domains if and after the TMCH registration was deemed invalid. That would provide better motivation to pursue the existing remedies.

      - Bret




________________________________

Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170413/54db9796/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list