[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Feb 3 01:34:27 UTC 2017


Hi folks,

Greg wrote " If you go to the USPTO Pilot Project report itself, you will
see that* 84%* of the 500 registrations in the pilot stayed on the
trademark register, while 16% failed to respond and were cancelled..  In
other words, all of those who actually responded were able to maintain
their trademark registrations, although some had to delete some goods
and/or services from their registrations due to non-use of those particular
goods and/or services."

That "in other words" part is actually not correct. It might not be evident
from the language in that report, but if you dig deeper and go to the
earlier roundtable at:

https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/uspto-roundtable-ensuring-accuracy-and-integrity

and download the Powerpoint report, on page 3 it states that "97% (486) of
registrations completed the pilot." So, it's not correct to say that only
those who didn't respond had their marks cancelled.

The precise language of the report was that: "In another 78 registrations,
or 16%, the trademark owner failed to respond to the requirements of the
pilot and any other issues raised during examination of the underlying
maintenance filing, resulting in cancellation of the registration."

That's quite different from saying that 16% didn't respond at all
(especially knowing from the PowerPoint that 97% actually responded, which
I didn't link to before). What it means is that 16% didn't provide a good
enough response to meet the requirements of the pilot study -- i.e. it
failed to meet the *requirements*.

Here's an open question --- what's an acceptable level of "gamed marks" in
the TMCH? And equally valid, what's an acceptable level of cybersquatting
amongst registered domains. Is 10% of domains being cybersquatting
considered "acceptable"? We have statistics on invalid WHOIS, for example
--- and those shape ICANN policy. Without actually auditing the TMCH to
determine the number of gamed marks (as was done for the WHOIS database),
how do we know whether we're meeting that "acceptable level"?? How do we
make policy determinations without that data?

And to respond to Lori's earlier post, one simple proposal to move things
forward would be to separate out the fees for the TMCH sunrise access.
Right now, people are paying for sunrise services:

http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/trademark-clearinghouse-fees

whether they want them or not. And it's clear from the actual registration
stats that most markholders registered for the TMCH aren't using the
sunrise periods. One can lower the TMCH fees for those markholders who
don't want the sunrise period access (yippee, saving people money!) and
raise the fees for the subset of markholders who do use the sunrise
periods. In other words, right now the large majority of markholders who
aren't using sunrise periods are subsidizing those who are using the
sunrise.

By raising the fees on those markholders who do use the sunrise periods
(whose costs are higher due to the extra verification needed for "use"),
and subjecting that subsetto greater scrutiny, one also reduces the
"gaming" problem.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> What she said+1.
>
> On the other point, regarding the USPTO pilot study,  the "alarming
> statistics" are a false alarm.  If you go to the USPTO Pilot Project report
> itself, you will see that* 84%* of the 500 registrations in the pilot
> stayed on the trademark register, while 16% failed to respond and were
> cancelled..  In other words, all of those who actually responded were able
> to maintain their trademark registrations, although some had to delete some
> goods and/or services from their registrations due to non-use of those
> particular goods and/or services.
>
> Also, all of the trademark registration in the pilot project were valid
> trademark registrations, and were entitled to continuing as registrations.
> The owners of all 500 registrations had been able to show use of the
> trademark on at least one good/service in each class in the registration
> when they filed the initial Declaration of Use at the beginning of the
> study.  The pilot program asked for proof of use of two *additional* goods or
> services per class.  This exceeds the current PTO practice, where a
> specimen demonstrating use of a mark on a single good or service within a
> class is sufficient to maintain registration for an entire class.  In other
> words, owners of registrations selected under the pilot study were subject
> to an enhanced level of scrutiny.
>
> So, the 51% number is quite misleading -- it only represents those
> participants that were unable to show use of the *additional *goods and
> services requested in the pilot, or who failed to respond at all.
>
> In addition, the following should be kept in mind:
>
> 1.  This represents a limited subset of US trademarks -- trademark
> registrations that are primarily based on rights from outside the US (from
> Paris Convention or Madrid Protocol countries).  So, even if the US
> registration was cancelled, it's highly likely that their "home" trademark
> registration was still valid.
> 2.  Most US trademarks do not fall into this category, so it teaches us
> nothing about trademarks where the original filing was in the US.
> 3.  In many other countries, trademark filings tend to list all the goods
> in a class, even where the use is only on certain goods.  The US practice
> is to file only for the goods where there is (or will be) actual use.  The
> result is that these foreign registrants were very vulnerable to being
> tripped up by this pilot study.  If you have a list of 30 goods in a class,
> and you provide proof of use for one of them, that' s usually
> satisfactory.  In the pilot, the USPTO randomly chose two of the other
> goods (i.e, 2 of the 29 in this example).  If the registrant didn't have
> use of these two goods, they went into the 51% -- even if they had use of
> some or all of the other goods in the class.  If they deleted these goods
> for non-use, they were then subject to further proof of use requirements in
> order to maintain their registration.  Every registrant responded
> successfully.
>
> In the end, the only "takeaway" from this study is that foreign filings
> with long lists of goods may include some goods for which use cannot be
> proven, in spite of signing off on the standard declaration that the marks
> are in use for all goods on the registaration.  This is the so-called
> "deadwood" problem.  It's still a problem, but it is not the problem you
> thought it was.  The "trademark protection to which [the registrants] are
> not entitled in the United States" refers to these additional goods in the
> registration for which there is no use.  It does *not* refer to the
> registration as a whole.
>
> Notably, it has little if any application to the TMCH.  First, it's  best
> practice to use a "home country" registration for the TMCH, so these types
> of "foreign filings" are unlikely to be used for the TMCH.  Second, the
> registrants were able to prove use for at least one good or service per
> class; so, if these registrations were used in the TMCH, they would have
> been accepted, and appropriately so.
>
> I hope that clears up the confusion about what this study does and does
> not mean.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 5:23 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> What she said . . . .
>>
>> *J. Scott Evans* *| Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>> Domains & Marketing |*
>>
>> *Adobe *
>>
>> 345 Park Avenue
>>
>> San Jose, CA 95110
>> 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162>
>> (cell)
>> jsevans at adobe.com
>>
>> www.adobe.com
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
>> Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:17 PM
>> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>>
>> I am lawyer and I work for INTA so I will speak to INTA’s content.  Yes,
>> per the information found on the INTA website, the armor has holes, however
>> the legal threshold for contesting an incontestable mark in the U.S. is
>> high.   It takes substantial effort and a high burden of proof to partake
>> of the cheese.  As noted earlier in the thread, the presumption of validity
>> rests with the trademark owner.   That said,  none of INTA’s content is
>> intended to be construed as legal advice.  We provide information for brand
>> owners and trademark professionals for whom it is incumbent to thoroughly
>> research the merits of any particular action that they may be
>> contemplating.   Reading provisions of statutes at face value without
>> understanding the underlying principles and precedents that support the
>> statute or the threshold of evidence required to successfully challenge a
>> trademark registration under the statute can be dangerous because it may
>> over simplify a complex area of the law.
>>
>> With regard to the US efforts to get rid of “dead wood” trademarks, its
>> speaks to the integrity of the US Trademark system in a positive way.  The
>> US understands that there is a problem and is taking the necessary steps to
>> correct it.  While the statistics are useful to understand the
>> inconsistencies in the US Federal Register, I think it is dangerous to use
>> these statistics to support a theory that a trademark registration is
>> inherently unreliable and such unreliability should be factored into ICANN
>> policies.  It undermines carefully constructed national and international
>> trademark regimes.   We need to trust that national, regional and global
>> trademark offices are doing their job as they have mechanisms to challenge
>> the validity of a trademark as well as internal checks such as the USPTO is
>> undertaking.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s clear that we can demonstrate flaws and inconsistencies in almost
>> any system.  However, discounting the entire system because of bad actors
>> undermines what we are trying to achieve in terms of taking actions
>> consistent with recognized principles of law and fairness to all parties.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there is a reasonable way to curtail gaming without undermining an
>> international system designed to protect consumers and promote innovation
>> then I am certainly open to discussing it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Lori
>>
>>
>>
>> Lori S. Schulman
>>
>> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>>
>> *International Trademark Association (INTA)*
>>
>> +1-202-704-0408 <(202)%20704-0408>, Skype: lsschulman
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: cid:image005.jpg at 01D270D2.1801CD20]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at ic
>> ann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *George Kirikos
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 02, 2017 3:37 PM
>> *To:* J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>
>> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Scott: I'm not a lawyer, nor am I practising trademark law. I made
>> a reference to INTA's website, and to the USPTO's own research, in
>> furtherance of a discussion we're having on this list. What makes you
>> think I'm not allowed to do so? If you have a problem with the content
>> of my messages, dispute the content, rather than seeking to silence
>> the speaker of that content.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:29 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
>> > George:
>> >
>> > Are you a trademark attorney? Are you an attorney? If not, I think it
>> > would be best if you refrain from practicing law. If you are, I point
>> you
>> > to McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition for US practice and
>> > Trademarks Throughout the World for a glimpse of international trademark
>> > laws.
>> >
>> > J. Scott
>> >
>> > J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>> > Domains & Marketing |
>> > Adobe
>> > 345 Park Avenue
>> > San Jose, CA 95110
>> > 408.536.5336 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162>
>> (cell)
>> > jsevans at adobe.com
>> > www.adobe.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/2/17, 12:23 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
>> > Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Without belabouring the obvious:
>> >>
>> >>1. "Incontestability" is less absolute than it sounds. Since Marc
>> >>appears to dislike links to Wikipedia, let me choose a reference that
>> >>he might prefer, namely INTA:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/IncontestabilityDoe
>> sAnybodyReallyUn
>> >>derstandIt.aspx
>> >>
>> >>"Despite the name, incontestability does not provide the registration
>> >>with a complete shield against attack. Registrations are subject to
>> >>cancellation at any time based on any of the following: (1)
>> >>genericness; (2) functionality; (3) abandonment; (4) fraud on the
>> >>USPTO; (5) immorality, deception or scandalousness; (6) disparagement;
>> >>(7) false suggestion of a connection; (8) geographical indications on
>> >>wines or spirits meeting certain requirements; (9) representation of a
>> >>flag or coat of arms of any nation; or (10) representation or name of
>> >>a living person without his or her consent or of a deceased president
>> >>without the consent of his widow. So the shield of incontestability
>> >>has been likened to the proverbial armor made of Swiss cheese rather
>> >>than a coat made of metal."
>> >>
>> >>Let me repeat the "takeaway", namely "armor made of Swiss cheese."
>> >>
>> >>2. As for what is "fact" vs "evidence" re: the meaning of a TM
>> >>registration, let me remind folks of some alarming statistics posted
>> >>to this list last August:
>> >>
>> >>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-August/000474.html
>> >>
>> >>"The results of the pilot program indicate that a substantial majority
>> >>of foreign registrants, 73% under the Madrid Protocol and 65% under
>> >>the Paris Convention, have submitted false declarations of use and
>> >>have therefore received trademark protection to which they are not
>> >>entitled in the United States."
>> >>
>> >>"During the two-year pilot program, the USPTO found that 51% of the
>> >>audited registration owners were unable to satisfy these additional
>> >>proof requirements. The USPTO cancelled 16% of the audited
>> >>registrations in their entirety because the registration owners failed
>> >>to respond to the request for additional proof or any other issues
>> >>raised during the examination of the original affidavit. In addition,
>> >>35% of the audited registration owners requested that some of the
>> >>goods or services be deleted from their registration."
>> >>
>> >>"A register that does not accurately reflect marks in use in the
>> >>United States for the goods/services identified in registrations
>> >>imposes costs and burdens on the public."
>> >>
>> >>In order to have a balanced and thorough review of the TMCH, we need
>> >>to keep these things in mind.
>> >>
>> >>Sincerely,
>> >>
>> >>George Kirikos
>> >>416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> >>http://www.leap.com/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:08 PM, jonathan matkowsky
>> >><jonathan.matkowsky at riskiq.net> wrote:
>> >>> In US, one of the benefits of registration is a presumption of
>> validity
>> >>>of
>> >>> ownership, and exclusivity with respect to the goods/services covered
>> >>>by the
>> >>> registration. Only by successfully challenging the registration would
>> >>>the
>> >>> owner lose that benefit. After 5 years, assuming certain documents are
>> >>> filed, the registration becomes conclusive evidence in certain
>> respects.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 at 21:25 Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As a clarification to the point of law, TM rights are presumed until
>> >>>>they
>> >>>> are challenged. George, to your point, TM rights may certainly be
>> >>>> challenged. However, the presumption is with the owner of the TM
>> >>>> registration until such challenge prevails. Under U.S. law, TM
>> >>>> registrations are proof of right. They are more than a notice of
>> >>>>claim. An
>> >>>> application is the notice of claim, the resulting registration
>> >>>>presumes the
>> >>>> right. I certainly welcome trademark practitioners from jurisdictions
>> >>>>to
>> >>>> weigh in on whether registrations are ³notice of a claim² or
>> considered
>> >>>> proof of ownership until otherwise successfully challenged.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lori
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lori S. Schulman
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Senior Director, Internet Policy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> International Trademark Association (INTA)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1-202-704-0408 <(202)%20704-0408>, Skype: lsschulman
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> >>>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> >>>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:19 PM
>> >>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Marc: I used the Wikipedia link as a fairly neutral starting point
>> for
>> >>>> the theory of signalling, and not "authoritative". Would you consider
>> >>>> the Nobel Prize in Economics for work on signalling to be
>> >>>> "authoritative" enough for you?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences
>> /laureates/2001/
>> >>>>press.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or should I have provided (like most of the posts to this list) no
>> >>>> external references at all, and simply allow people to go to Google
>> on
>> >>>> their own? Which aspect of the concept of signalling do you disagree
>> >>>> with?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As for "registrations is proof that the marks are not only worthy of
>> >>>> protection, but that they are in fact protected under the law of the
>> >>>> issuing jurisdiction."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hmmm, that's not correct, given that TM registrations can be and are
>> >>>> disputed and cancelled. Trademark registration is *evidence* and
>> >>>> *notice* of a *claim* to a trademark right (perhaps even a strong
>> >>>> claim), but are not "proof" of anything as a "fact."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sincerely,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> George Kirikos
>> >>>> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> >>>> http://www.leap.com/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:06 PM, <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > George,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Thank you for your economics tutorial based on Wikipedia -
>> certainly
>> >>>>an
>> >>>> > authoritative source.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Regardless I don¹t think your application of this to the TMCH is
>> >>>> > appropriate and disagree with your description of how the TMCH
>> >>>>functions.
>> >>>> > When trademark holders submit their registrations to the TMCH, they
>> >>>>are not
>> >>>> > trying to prove that their marks are "worthy" of protection. The
>> >>>>fact that
>> >>>> > they have registrations is proof that the marks are not only worthy
>> >>>>of
>> >>>> > protection, but that they are in fact protected under the law of
>> the
>> >>>>issuing
>> >>>> > jurisdiction.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Best regards,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Marc H. Trachtenberg
>> >>>> > Shareholder
>> >>>> > Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 |
>> >>>>Chicago, IL
>> >>>> > 60601
>> >>>> > Tel 312.456.1020 <(312)%20456-1020>
>> >>>> > Mobile 773.677.3305 <(773)%20677-3305>
>> >>>> > trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> >>>> > [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>> >>>> > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:58 PM
>> >>>> > To: gnso-rpm-wg
>> >>>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > To continue the "economics tutorial", this is all directly related
>> to
>> >>>> > the concept of signalling:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.
>> wikipedia.org_wi
>> >>>>ki_Signalling-5F-28economics-29&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSK
>> kl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB
>> >>>>7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=LGFzEnWv-myJ-W
>> yHhwMfs41uWqUos4
>> >>>>g3JWuGXUa1FwI&s=_-ZU3Mu11NJjQnuoQdYhV9epeypY8SYFTzL35TJgjqs&e=
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > The classic example comes from the education credentials market.
>> How
>> >>>> > does a job candidate signal that they're a high quality hire? The
>> >>>>idea is
>> >>>> > that high quality job candidates can obtain good degrees, and it's
>> >>>>much
>> >>>> > costlier for low quality job candidates to get those same
>> >>>>credentials.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Let's apply this to the TMCH -- implicitly, trademark holders are
>> >>>> > jumping through hoops at present to determine that their marks are
>> >>>>"worthy"
>> >>>> > of protection. The hoops they're jumping through are:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 1. pay the TMCH fees, and
>> >>>> > 2. show evidence of national TM registration in a jurisdiction, and
>> >>>>3.
>> >>>> > show proof of use
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > However, unlike the academic credentials market above, where "good"
>> >>>> > and "bad" job candidates face different costs, in the TMCH the
>> "good"
>> >>>> > and "bad" trademark holders face essentially the SAME costs! (i.e.
>> >>>>the
>> >>>> > fees are the same, one can get a Pakistani TM for under $10, and
>> one
>> >>>>can
>> >>>> > throw up a webpage for free to show "proof of use").
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > In other words, the mechanisms for signalling are entirely broken
>> in
>> >>>>the
>> >>>> > TMCH. Economics 101. The "bad guys" certainly know it's broken. As
>> a
>> >>>> > policymaking body, we should understand *why* it's broken, and
>> >>>>either (1)
>> >>>> > make stronger signals to differentiate and distinguish between
>> >>>>worthy and
>> >>>> > unworthy marks, or (2) as I suggested earlier, set an explicit
>> >>>>direct price
>> >>>> > to change the balance and behaviour directly.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Sincerely,
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > George Kirikos
>> >>>> > 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
>> leap.com_&d=DwIG
>> >>>>aQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrK
>> Xt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1
>> >>>>c&m=LGFzEnWv-myJ-WyHhwMfs41uWqUos4g3JWuGXUa1FwI&s=A_
>> wfuQ-jCOYyo9r24YJ9m6
>> >>>>g71cr0vEGbww0X9qgsNDU&e=
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:36 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>> >> Hello,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> (and trying to combine multiple responses in one email)
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> I think you are trying to apply domain speculation thinking where
>> >>>>it
>> >>>> >>> is all about monetary value to protection of trademark rights,
>> >>>>which is not
>> >>>> >>> necessary focused or valued in terms of specific monetary value.
>> >>>>They are
>> >>>> >>> not the same thing.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> If life isn¹t fair is an acceptable justification then why change
>> >>>>the
>> >>>> >>> current system because it is not fair that some may have gamed it
>> >>>>by using
>> >>>> >>> trademark registrations obtained solely for the purpose of
>> >>>>registering
>> >>>> >>> valuable domain names during sunrise? You can¹t have it both
>> ways.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 1. The "domain speculation thinking" is your term for what is
>> simply
>> >>>> >> rational economic decision-making. Even for trademark protection,
>> >>>> >> rational trademark holders prioritize enforcement based on a
>> >>>> >> comparison between the economic benefit of stopping the abuse
>> >>>>relative
>> >>>> >> to the economic cost of that enforcement.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 2. The "life isn't fair" in my statement was referencing the fact
>> >>>>that
>> >>>> >> not everyone has the same wealth. That is entirely different from
>> >>>> >> those misusing trademark registrations obtained solely for the
>> >>>>purpose
>> >>>> >> of registering valuable domain names -- those TMs would be invalid
>> >>>>in
>> >>>> >> jurisdictions requiring use (and thus shouldn't have been granted
>> in
>> >>>> >> the first place).
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 3. Some folks continue to dance around the issue, and ignore the
>> >>>> >> economics completely. Each and every time you try to add a wrinkle
>> >>>>to
>> >>>> >> the procedure (i.e. "tweaks" that seek to give better proof of
>> use,
>> >>>>or
>> >>>> >> other modifications), all that does is slightly change the "costs"
>> >>>>for
>> >>>> >> some actors, but doesn't change the underlying economics by much.
>> >>>>i.e.
>> >>>> >> it attempts to impose a "price" indirectly, rather than explicitly
>> >>>>and
>> >>>> >> directly setting a price that would actually change behaviour.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 4. For those saying "small" trademark holders would be affected
>> ---
>> >>>> >> fine, change the economics accordingly --- should the quota be
>> >>>>10,000
>> >>>> >> marks? Should the cost be $1? Once you make the cost explicitly be
>> >>>>$1,
>> >>>> >> that just says "Fine, we're going to accept all the gaming
>> >>>>behaviour,
>> >>>> >> because we're prepared to look the other way!" That's an
>> invitation
>> >>>>to
>> >>>> >> those who are misusing the sunrise periods to continue doing what
>> >>>> >> they're doing.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> While some constituencies in the GNSO might be fine with that
>> >>>>balance
>> >>>> >> (i.e. accept every TM, and allow all kinds of abuse of the sunrise
>> >>>> >> periods), other constituencies might draw the line for that
>> balance
>> >>>> >> elsewhere.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 5. Let me give you an example -- ACPA allows damages of up to
>> >>>>$100,000
>> >>>> >> for cybersquatting. That's an explicit cost on cybersquatters that
>> >>>> >> they take into account, and has a deterrent effect. What if that
>> >>>>limit
>> >>>> >> instead was $500? Behaviour would obviously change accordingly,
>> >>>> >> because cybersquatters are rational.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> 6. A further example -- it costs $1000+ to file a UDRP (on top of
>> >>>> >> legal costs, so a number like $5000 might be more relevant for
>> those
>> >>>> >> who use lawyers). If the total costs were $300, there would be a
>> lot
>> >>>> >> more filings (which would reduce the benefits of cybersquatting,
>> and
>> >>>> >> thus change the economics of abuse).
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> In conclusion, the economics of all the actors are paramount, and
>> >>>>seem
>> >>>> >> to be mostly ignored. By focusing on those economics directly, as
>> >>>> >> policymakers we can precision-target the policies to directly
>> target
>> >>>> >> those behaviours, and reduce all the "collateral damage" on the
>> >>>> >> innocent actors.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Sincerely,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> George Kirikos
>> >>>> >> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
>> leap.com_&d=Dw
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>IGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3J
>> rKXt7T1dG3NjBz
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>Cxm1c&m=LGFzEnWv-myJ-WyHhwMfs41uWqUos4g3JWuGXUa1FwI&s=A_
>> wfuQ-jCOYyo9r2
>> >>>> >> 4YJ9m6g71cr0vEGbww0X9qgsNDU&e=
>> >>>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>>> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> >>>> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.
>> icann.org_mailma
>> >>>>n_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_
>> Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-
>> >>>>UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=LGFzEnWv-myJ-WyHhwM
>> fs41uWqUos4g3JWu
>> >>>>GXUa1FwI&s=g9D6x_5yyONXbDzXKuaVg7WsGRorHP9u7RikcGTnhtY&e=
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------
>> >>>> > If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged
>> >>>> > information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately
>> at
>> >>>> > postmaster at gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such
>> information.
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> jonathan matkowsky, vp - ip & head of global brand threat mitigation
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170202/2bd84ae0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170202/2bd84ae0/image001-0001.jpg>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list