[gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group)

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Mon Jul 17 14:17:32 UTC 2017


Hi folks,

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
<ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> If you assume 100 bona fide sunrise registrations per extension (registrations that correlate to trademarks that are actually in use), and of those 50 get squatted on because there is no TMCH, then assuming the cost on investigating, preparing and filing a UDRP complaint to be $4000, the cost would be $200,000 per extension.  If you assume the conservative number of 500 new gTLD extensions involved, the cost would be $100 million.  Ultimately that cost likely filters down to consumers, so it seems that having a sunrise period in the end is a cost saver and a far more efficient way of proceeding
>

Of course, those alarmist assumptions (50% cybersquatting rate) don't
match the actual cybersquatting experience in the post-sunrise
landrush periods, which is not surprising given that they're coming
from someone who repeatedly denied that there was any abuse of the
TMCH to begin with.

When I proposed elimination of the sunrise period back in April, which
started a long thread:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-April/001509.html

I used a more realistic estimate of 2% (which is still above the rate
actually experienced). Compared with the estimated cost savings of $10
million/yr from elimination of the TMCH, TM holders would be saving
money on an overall basis.

Note that I even suggested that since those sunrise registrations
would shift into the beginning part of landrush, as a "horse trade"
that there could be additional protections imposed by raising the bar
slightly for those early landrush registrants, e.g. "loser pays" for
any UDRPs.

Of course, it still perplexes me as to why there is not greater
utilization of the ACPA $100K damages route, to actually send a
stronger message, like Verizon and others have done. There was a
thread on one domain forum about how Facebook won a UDRP against a
company in 2011:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/domainmarket-com-mike-manns-domains.1030091/
 (post #18 in that thread)
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0516

Yet that company still apparently owns Facebook-related domains, e.g.

https://whois.domaintools.com/facebookservices.com

(more listed in that thread)

Why wouldn't Facebook try to obtain $100,000 x the number of domains
being allegedly cybersquatted (and potentially triple damages, in some
scenarios, plus legal costs), rather than *pay* $1,500+ for a UDRP? It
doesn't make sense to me at all.

As long as those who cybersquat can do so with little actual downside,
you're not going to see a reduction by the repeat offenders.

Sincerely,

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


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list