[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal for the elimination of Sunrise Period

Ariel Manoff amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Thu Apr 20 14:17:19 UTC 2017


+Brian

Héctor Ariel Manoff
Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen
Viamonte 1145 10º Piso
C1053ABW Buenos Aires
República Argentina
Te: (54-11) 4371-6100
Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365
E-mail: amanoff at vmf.com.ar
Web: http://www.vmf.com.ar


-----Mensaje original-----
De: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] En
nombre de icannlists
Enviado el: jueves, 20 de abril de 2017 8:46
Para: Beckham, Brian
CC: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal for the elimination of Sunrise Period

Agree Brian and J Scott!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 20, 2017, at 5:40 AM, Beckham, Brian
<brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>> wrote:

To add support to J Scott’s comment:

When a trademark owner pays a premium to defensively register a domain name
exactly matching its trademark in a Sunrise process this does not prevent
free expression; it does however protect consumers by preventing potential
misrepresentation under that particular string.

In weighing the respective costs and benefits, it is difficult to see how
the current system whereby one domain name is removed from circulation to
prevent consumer harm / trademark abuse should be eliminated because it may
prevent speech from that one particular outlet in a universe of virtually
countless other available outlets.

In any event, Jeremy, this group would no doubt find any examples you may be
aware of, of actual speech chilling (particularly speech that could not be
undertaken elsewhere) because of a Sunrise registration, quite useful.

Finally, the claimed “cost savings” formula below is far too simplistic; the
harm that can occur e.g., through one domain name-occasioned phishing
campaign alone (in the time it takes to apply the cure) could upend that
entire equation many times over.

Brian

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 20, 2017 1:51 AM
To: Paul Tattersfield
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal for the elimination of Sunrise Period

We keep hearing all these outlandish claims of the poor folks cheated out of
an opportunity to express themselves or start a new business, but no real
proof. I hear all the same arguments I have heard since 2009 and from the
same groups with no proof. I also see no new voices claiming any of this
alleged harm. What I see is a group of stakeholders with an anti-IP agenda
making the same old arguments hoping to trim back consensus solutions where
compromises based on these arguments have already been made.

J. Scott

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 19, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Paul Tattersfield
<gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>> wrote:
I’m not sure I agree. The Claims Notices are likely to have a far bigger
impact on people not registering domains especially those who are not
professional registrants and have not seen a claims notice before.

No Claims Notices should be issued without a substantive review of the
underlying goods and services.

The idea that anyone can buy a piece of paper without any real goods or
services to protect and can then use that piece of paper to discourage
others from building real world businesses simply because some jurisdictions
give out those pieces of paper out like confetti under the pretext of ideas
they ‘might want to do in the future’ should be deeply frowned upon by
anyone participating in ICANN.
Paul

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm
<jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:

Open questions 7 and 8 illustrate how the protections provided to trademark
holders through the TMCH have been applied too broadly by the provider,
opening the door for gaming and abuse by trademark holders, and chilling of
speech by affected third parties. This proposal also bears on question 16
(Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections mechanisms which flow from
it reflect the appropriate balance between the rights of trademark holders
and the rights of non-trademark registrants?).

It has been seen that the TMCH has facilitated trademark owners claiming
exclusive rights in domain names that they don’t exist in domestic trademark
law, such as words incorporated into design marks. Open question 10, rather
than addressing the potential for abuse, actually suggests a measure that
would allow even more non-trademarked terms to be locked up by priority
claimants.

As a measure to address these problems, we propose eliminating the TMCH’s
Sunrise Registration service altogether. Although we also have concerns
about its Trademark Claims service and will likely propose its elimination
separately at a later date, the Sunrise Registration service is the most
urgent to eliminate, because it creates an absolute bar to third parties
registering domains that a Sunrise registrant has already claimed, whereas
the Trademark Claims service results in a warning to third parties but does
not absolutely preclude them from registering.

We believe that the elimination of Sunrise Registrations would be the
simplest way to address the problems of gaming and abuse that have been
observed by working group members, not only in respect of design marks and
geographical words, but also the misuse of dubious trademarks over common
dictionary words such as “the”, “hotel”, “luxury”, “smart”, “one”, “love”,
and “flower” to lock up domains unrelated to the original trademark.

If the Sunrise Registration system were widely used by trademark holders,
then it might be claimed that its elimination was disproportionate—but as we
have seen, this is not the case. There have been only about 130 Sunrise
Registrations per new domain.  Such a small number of claims could be more
simply and efficiently handled simply by allowing those claimants to resort
to curative mechanisms such as the UDRP in the event that a third-party
registrant beats them to registering a domain over which they might have
made a claim.

The benefits of the elimination of Sunrise Registrations would be:

·         An overall cost saving.

·         Streamlining of the public availability of domains in new
registries.

·         Elimination of the potential for gaming and abuse by putative
trademark holders who claim rights over domain names that do not correspond
to their domestic trademark rights.

The costs would be:

  *   Some trademark holders would be required to resort to curative
proceedings if domain names over which they have a legitimate claim are
registered by third parties.

--

Jeremy Malcolm

Senior Global Policy Analyst

Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://eff.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%
2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004172724&sdata=LCpvg6fU%2FXkpw1fm
AH8KzPJDWABttoqafNYeotxdCiQ%3D&reserved=0>

jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>



Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:(415)%20436-9333>



:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::



Public key:
https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt<https://na01.safelinks
.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2
F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c75c3%7C
fa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004172724&sdata=L5mf1H52
yrjTzEUH1k0ZD7QleNH6oCdZhT3B7%2FDCW1Y%3D&reserved=0>

PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122

_______________________________________________
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<https://na01.safelinks.pro
tection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fg
nso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34
438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004182733&sdata=fZ88VMsRjujGitQovRkG
fOctUusd1sufOBNGSw97Kn8%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or
g%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d440
8d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004182733&
sdata=fZ88VMsRjujGitQovRkGfOctUusd1sufOBNGSw97Kn8%3D&reserved=0
World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
Web: www.wipo.int/ipday<http://www.wipo.int/ipday>
Facebook: www.facebook.com/worldipday<http://www.facebook.com/worldipday>


World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message
may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If
you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the
sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all
e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________
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


________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
under applicable tax laws and regulations.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg



More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list