[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

[Kathy Kleiman]

In my personal capacity:

SMEs suffer on both sides. Entrepreneurs newly naming their companies do 
not yet have trademarks; small businesses newly naming their products 
and services also do not yet have trademarks for them.

I have seen SMEs, and indeed, entirely new industries, nearly wiped out 
by overly broad trademark protection in domain name policies (think back 
to the early days). It's the balance that is critical to protect everyone.

Best, Kathy

Kathy Kleiman
www.fhhlaw.com

On 2/2/2017 12:58 PM, Marie Pattullo 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