[gnso-rpm-wg] Fwd: Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)

Thu Apr 27 11:41:16 UTC 2017

Can we please move from guessing to data-based decision making?

To do so we need the data from TMCH.  I really do not see any other means
of getting to the end of this.

And, I continue to find it humorous that those currently complaining about
supposition appear to be the same group that objected to a review of the
TMCH data.

PRK

On 4/27/17, 5:27 AM, "Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:

>Forwarding to match.
>
>If you think that lots of people have valid uses--including rights--in
>those terms, then when they stop trying to register those terms, that
>is overdeterrence.  I think what I said was clear.
>
>Rebecca Tushnet
>Georgetown Law
>703 593 6759
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> Your guess -- and overdeterrence is just a guess, with nothing to back
>>it up
>> -- is as good as mine.  My guess is that it absolutely is not
>> overdeterrence.
>>
>> And my point was that your statement was a mischaracterization of the
>>way
>> the TMCH, Sunrise and Claims work, as well as a mischaracterization of
>>how
>> trademarks work.  So I don't think "My point exactly" is what you meant
>>to
>> say (though I wish it were).
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>> C: 917-816-6428
>> S: gsshatan
>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Rebecca Tushnet
>> <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> My point exactly.  So what explains the over 90% abandonment rate,
>>> other than overdeterrence, especially with those most returned terms?
>>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>> Georgetown Law
>>> 703 593 6759
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > "Maybe absolutely no one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a
>>> > legitimate
>>> > business using those terms."
>>> >
>>> > That is clearly and absolutely not the basis of trademark rights,
>>> > trademark
>>> > registration or entry into the TMCH.  Nor is it the way Sunrise or
>>> > Claims
>>> > work.  Ridiculous.
>>> >
>>> > Greg
>>> >
>>> > Greg Shatan
>>> > C: 917-816-6428
>>> > S: gsshatan
>>> > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Rebecca Tushnet
>>> > <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, because we don't have good survey evidence, one of the
>>>questions
>>> >> is what we can infer from the circumstantial evidence available to
>>>us,
>>> >> particularly the over 90% abandonment rate combined with the top
>>> >> queries being words like forex, cloud, and love.  Maybe absolutely
>>>no
>>> >> one else besides the TMCH entrant/s had a legitimate business using
>>> >> those terms.  But I doubt it.
>>> >> Rebecca Tushnet
>>> >> Georgetown Law
>>> >> 703 593 6759
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:37 PM, icannlists
>>><icannlists at winston.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Thanks Rebecca.  I've never heard of a trademark owner being
>>>deterred
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > a claims notice since one of the explicit defenses in the UDRP is
>>> >> > when a
>>> >> > registrant has rights or legitimate interests in a corresponding
>>> >> > trademark.
>>> >> > So, I think that one may be a bit of a red herring.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > However, your comment about avoiding overreach is well received
>>>and
>>> >> > we
>>> >> > should keep it in mind while at the same time not under-reaching
>>> >> > either -
>>> >> > when we do that, Grandma gets phished.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best,
>>> >> > Paul
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> > From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu]
>>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:17 PM
>>> >> > To: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
>>> >> > Cc: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>;
>>> >> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> >> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>>> >> > (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Avoiding overreaching is pro-trademark, as the public reaction to
>>> >> > SOPA/PIPA and patent trolls has shown with respect to copyright
>>>and
>>> >> > patent.
>>> >> > There are also the interests of trademark owners who aren't
>>> >> > participating in
>>> >> > this process but may want to register domain names that are
>>>perfectly
>>> >> > legitimate for their goods/services and jurisdictions.  Some of
>>>them
>>> >> > may
>>> >> > inevitably receive notices and be deterred, but there are steps we
>>> >> > can take
>>> >> > to limit that problem.
>>> >> > Rebecca Tushnet
>>> >> > Georgetown Law
>>> >> > 703 593 6759
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:50 PM, icannlists
>>><icannlists at winston.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Thanks Rebecca.  I'm not characterizing you as anti-trademark;
>>>just
>>> >> >> your arguments and positions to date on this list.  We would very
>>> >> >> much
>>> >> >> welcome anything favorable to trademarks that you wish to add to
>>>the
>>> >> >> discourse.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Best,
>>> >> >> Paul
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> From: Rebecca Tushnet [mailto:Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu]
>>> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:00 PM
>>> >> >> To: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
>>> >> >> Cc: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>;
>>> >> >> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>>>#16
>>> >> >> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Please don't characterize me as anti-trademark; I strongly
>>>believe
>>> >> >> in
>>> >> >> the consumer protection function of trademarks, and also in
>>> >> >> trademark
>>> >> >> protection in some circumstances for business purposes.  See
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 
>>>https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/registering-disagreement-registra
>>> >> >> tion-in-modern-american-trademark-law/
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Asking again: for those of you who think it doesn't matter if
>>> >> >> claimants
>>> >> >> who don't own relevant rights get to use the TMCH, what then did
>>> >> >> ICANN mean
>>> >> >> by its stated intent not to expand trademark rights?
>>> >> >> Rebecca Tushnet
>>> >> >> Georgetown Law
>>> >> >> 703 593 6759
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:46 PM, icannlists
>>><icannlists at winston.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> Thanks Rebecca.  There is not much new here.  Whomever
>>>registers a
>>> >> >>> second level domain name first (Sunrise - TM owner), Premium
>>>(Rich
>>> >> >>> person)
>>> >> >>> or Landrush (TM owner who didn't want to pay the Sunrise
>>>shakedown
>>> >> >>> price or
>>> >> >>> regular folks like all of us), someone gets the exclusive
>>>rights to
>>> >> >>> that
>>> >> >>> second level.  So, it is not just a question of if, but of when
>>>and
>>> >> >>> who.  I
>>> >> >>> think it is OK to just say "I don't want it to be a trademark
>>> >> >>> owner."
>>> >> >>> Others will disagree, but we don't have to keep this in a
>>> >> >>> mysterious context
>>> >> >>> or otherwise try to layer on some free speech issue that doesn't
>>> >> >>> exist.
>>> >> >>> Trademark owners want them first in order to protect their
>>>brands
>>> >> >>> and
>>> >> >>> consumers.  Others who are anti-trademarks don't want them to
>>>have
>>> >> >>> them
>>> >> >>> first and would prefer someone else gets the exclusive right.
>>>Fair
>>> >> >>> enough.
>>> >> >>> Now we see if we can get to consensus on changing the AGB.  I
>>>doubt
>>> >> >>> we will,
>>> >> >>> but at least the free speech veneer is pulled back.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Best,
>>> >> >>> Paul
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> >> >>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca
>>>Tushnet
>>> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:11 PM
>>> >> >>> To: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>
>>> >> >>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>>>#16
>>> >> >>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> By that logic the mandate not to expand on trademark rights
>>>would
>>> >> >>> have been pointless because no activity in domain name space
>>>could
>>> >> >>> ever have expanded trademark rights.  Call it a right, call it a
>>> >> >>> privilege, call it an alien from Xenon if you like, but ICANN
>>>did
>>> >> >>> not
>>> >> >>> want trademark owners to be able to assert control over domain
>>> >> >>> names
>>> >> >>> in excess of what underlying trademark law would have allowed.
>>> >> >>> Under
>>> >> >>> the "nothing in domain names can expand trademark rights because
>>> >> >>> they're never exclusive" logic, was the ICANN direction
>>>completely
>>> >> >>> meaningless, or did it have some meaning?  (Trademark rights, of
>>> >> >>> course, are never "exclusive" either, which is why we can use
>>>any
>>> >> >>> examples we want in this discussion.) Rebecca Tushnet Georgetown
>>> >> >>> Law
>>> >> >>> 703 593 6759
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Silver, Bradley via gnso-rpm-wg
>>> >> >>> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> Jeremy - the TMCH does not allow exclusive rights in domains.
>>> >> >>>> Having
>>> >> >>>> a mark in the TMCH affords nothing close an exclusive right.
>>> >> >>>> That's a basic
>>> >> >>>> truth which shouldn¹t be ignored.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>> >> >>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
>>>Malcolm
>>> >> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:32 PM
>>> >> >>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and
>>>#16
>>> >> >>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On 26/4/17 9:00 am, Colin O'Brien wrote:
>>> >> >>>>> Nice try Rebecca but I'm not attempting to overturn the apple
>>> >> >>>>> cart.
>>> >> >>>>> If you have actual examples of problems then provide them
>>> >> >>>>> otherwise this is
>>> >> >>>>> an indulgent  academic exercise.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> The fact that the TMCH is allowing exclusive rights in domains
>>> >> >>>> that
>>> >> >>>> go beyond the equivalent rights in domestic trademark law is
>>> >> >>>> itself a
>>> >> >>>> problem if we accept that the TMCH was meant to track trademark
>>> >> >>>> law.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> --
>>> >> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> >> >>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> >> >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> >> >>>> https://eff.org
>>> >> >>>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Public key:
>>>https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>>> >> >>>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF
>>>1122
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> 
>>>====================================================================
>>> >> >>>> =
>>> >> >>>> =
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> 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.
>>> >> >>>> 
>>>=================================================================
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>> 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
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> ________________________________
>>> >> >>> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg