[gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History

[Greg Shatan]

Brian,

Good point.  I'm concerned about the "Casablanca Syndrome" ("I'm shocked,
shocked to find cybersquatting in my gTLD"), which is not really "willful
blindness" but more a willingness to set the wheels in motion and look
away, when one knows (or should know) what the result will be.  (Indeed,
one may depend on it as part of the business model, even if it is not
stated.)  While cybersquatting will probably never be eliminated, some
circumstances encourage it more than others.  I'm confident that the vast
majority of registries really don't want to become "cybersquatting havens,"
but that doesn't mean that's a universal truth.

Greg

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> Thanks, and we will look to your expertise when we reach the URS portion
> of our agenda later this year.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System - MFSD
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:38 AM
> *To:* disenberg at gigalawfirm.com
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
>
>
>
> Every time I write about URS, I'm stopped that it's still not time to talk
> about it...
>
>
>
> I agree with Doug that an important factor when considering to choose
> between URS and UDRP is the low administrative fees.
>
>
>
> The other one is that it is fast and the brand owners' first intention
> could be to obtain cessation of the infringement immediately.
>
>
>
> It is less used that it could be, also because there is a lack of
> information amongst the brand owners' when it applies (many requests of
> information if it can be use for .com domains) and  which is the
> outcome/what happens when suspension period expires.
>
>
>
> I think that the statistics, over 680 URS cases filed at the 3 URS Dispute
> Resolution Providers, shows that it is used and useful (over 95% of the
> disputed domain names suspended). When we will arrive at that point I am
> sure that ICANN staff, Forum and ADNDRC will provide statistics how many
> successful URS cases turned into UDRP.
>
>
>
> Happy New Year to everyone!
>
>
>
> Ivett Paulovics
>
> URS Domain Dispute Case Manager
>
> ---
>
> MFSD Srl | IP Dispute Resolution Center
>
> Viale Beatrice d'Este, 20 | 20122 Milano (Italy)
>
> T +39 02 45506624 <+39%2002%2045506624> | F +39 02 91471087
> <+39%2002%2091471087>
>
> urs at mfsd.it <responsabile at mfsd.it> | www.mfsd.it <http://ww.mfsd.it/>
>
> Skype mfsd
>
> P. Iva 04810100968 (Italian VAT)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> URS Domain Dispute Resolution Service Provider approved by ICANN
>
> .it Domain Dispute Resolution Center accredited by Registry .it
>
> IP Mediation Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n. 903)
>
> IP Mediation Training Center authorized by Italian Ministry of Justice (n.
> 392)
>
>
>
> [image: 1ECE0438-9D98-41F7-AAD9-10EE7CE22471]
>
>
> Il giorno 03 gen 2017, alle ore 20:41, Doug Isenberg <
> disenberg at gigalawfirm.com> ha scritto:
>
> I have no insights as to why this trademark owner chose the URS instead of
> the UDRP, but certainly the filing fee for this URS case (as I noted in my
> blog post) was much less than a UDRP complaint would have cost.  At the
> Forum (where this URS complaint was filed -- and where the same trademark
> owner has filed previous UDRP cases), the filing fee for a URS case with
> more than 50 domain names is only $500; by comparison, the Forum doesn't
> even publish a fee schedule for UDRP cases with more than 16 domain names
> (and the UDRP filing fee for a complaint with 15 domain names is $2,250).
> Clearly, the UDRP filing fee would have been many times more expensive than
> for the URS case.  Since trademark owners often consider costs when
> evaluating enforcement options, I suspect this may have been a factor.
>
> Doug
>
>
> -----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 Jon Nevett
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 2:31 PM
> To: Marc Trachtenberg <trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Largest URS Filing/Decision in History
>
> Thanks for sharing Phil and Doug.
>
> This case is an interesting data point of a brand holder deciding to use
> the
> URS over the UDRP.  We developed the RPMs with the hope that brand holders
> would utilize the RPMs that made the most sense to them to protect their
> brands.  The URS was developed for slam-dunk cases of infringement.  We
> wanted to create a quicker and less costly way to take down infringing
> domain names.  There was a deliberate distinction between the standard of
> proof and remedies with the URS and the UDRP.  If these distinctions didn't
> exist, there would not have been a purpose for the URS.  It would be
> interesting to understand why a brand holder like this one selected to use
> the URS over the UDRP -- and especially whether they understood the risk
> that Kiran mentioned.
>
> Look forward to the discussion at the appropriate time.
>
> Best,
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170104/73429ee3/attachment-0001.html>