[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

Completely agree.  If anything, I think ICANN solutions have focused too
much on 'big brand' problems without focusing enough on practical SME
solutions.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
wrote:

> I have seen exactly the same with TM infringement & counterfeiting; it's
> the SMEs that suffer the most, not only as they may well only have one
> brand, they don't have the resources, or expert lawyers on hand, to be able
> to defend themselves.
> Marie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Doug Isenberg
> Sent: jeudi 2 février 2017 18:53
> To: gnso-rpm-wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>
> What is the source/basis/explanation for the following statement: "it's
> only the 'biggest companies' that have a real problem with cybersquatting,
> in terms of economic costs"?  While larger companies may be more well-known
> than smaller companies, and therefore more likely to attract
> cybersquatters, I've seen plenty of small companies suffer significantly as
> the result of only a single instance of cybersquatting.
>
> Doug Isenberg
> www.GigaLaw.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:46 PM
> To: trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>
> Marc: That's the elegance of the "market" mechanism --- no one has to
> agree to some "valuation" of the trademarks --- by setting an explicit
> price to the sunrise privilege (i.e. instead of that privilege costing
> merely $300 or whatever the TMCH fees are, it would be much higher), be
> design only the high value trademark owners would be prepared to pay that
> price, to deter cybersquatting.
>
> One can't protect all trademarks from cybersquatting, nor can one protect
> all domain names during sunrise from being misappropriated or misallocated
> through misuse of marginal trademarks. By setting an appropriate price, a
> better balance is achieved than exists now.
>
> "I don’t think your proposed auction system would be fair or practical for
> that matter and would create a system where only the biggest companies
> could protect their trademark rights in new gTLDS through the RPMs."
>
> Life isn't "fair" -- some folks are wealthier than others. That will
> always be the case, in a capitalist society.
>
> Furthermore, it's only the "biggest companies" that have a real problem
> with cybersquatting, in terms of economic costs. If 90% of the abuse
> happens with a relatively small proportion of markholders, the system
> should be targeted to where that abuse is actually happening, and filter it
> by the economic size (through an explicit price).
>
> Where ICANN has it wrong at present is trying to design a "one size fits
> all" solution --- that left it wide open for gaming, where the marginal
> trademark registrations are being abused.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> !DSPAM:589371ff17191564785748!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170202/1fceca60/attachment.html>