[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment

Brian F. Cimbolic BCimbolic at pir.org
Fri Jun 9 14:24:42 UTC 2017


J. Scott, respectfully, what evidence is there that the Claims notice provided to registrants is not having a chilling effect for those with no intention to infringe?  I understand there is not direct evidence on either side of the issue, but to say decisively that it is "Not so" about the chilling effect without providing some evidence seems unnecessarily flippant.

Brian Cimbolic
Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| 
www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 
 
 
Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:19 AM
To: Rebecca Tushnet <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu>; Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH data on abandonment
Importance: High

I will remind the group that Abandonment is the point. The TM Claims notice is designed to inform would-be innocent infringers that there is an issue. A high abandonment rate show that the system is working. I realize those hostile to the TM Claims feel that a high abandonment rate is proof that the Claims notice is overreaching. Not so.

J. Scott


J. Scott Evans
408.536.5336 (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Trademarks
408.709.6162 (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
jsevans at adobe.com
www.adobe.com
 
 
 

On 6/9/17, 7:16 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:

    I agree with Paul K.  Unfortunately, we need better information than
    that--we need to know about, of attempts that reached the stage at
    which a notice would be provided, how many were abandoned.  It's my
    understanding--though I'd be happy to learn more--that the notice
    wouldn't come when the shopping cart was filled but at checkout.
    
    If we just don't have the data, then it may be that our only
    recommendation must be to get the data.
    Rebecca Tushnet
    Georgetown Law
    703 593 6759
    
    
    On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
    > Dear all,
    >
    >
    >
    > I’m not sure what is the right venue (i.e., in the sub-group, of which I am
    > not a member, or to the full WG) to offer this, and it is offered merely to
    > help fill out some of the questions/discussion around seeking various
    > TMCH/Claims-related data.
    >
    >
    >
    > In the transcript for the Sub Team for Trademark Claims call on Friday, 02
    > June 2017 at 16:00 UTC, there was some discussion on abandonment rates.  In
    > summary:  Rebeca Tushnet suggested it would be helpful to compare
    > non-TMCH-related abandonment vs “regular” abandonment.  Jeff Neuman recalled
    > that during the BIZ launch there was a high abandonment.  Phil Corwin
    > suggested that if the non-TMCH-related abandonment rate was 80% then it may
    > be reasonable to conclude that there’s not a material difference between
    > those subject to claims notices.
    >
    >
    >
    > Mindful that it may be difficult or even impossible to obtain the desired
    > data (a number of reasons, including competitive (dis-)advantages, were
    > raised on the call), a recent GoDaddy post informs us that “An average
    > website loses 69 percent of sales to abandoned carts.”   A second GoDaddy
    > article suggests it is 67%.
    >
    >
    >
    > See
    > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Fsmallbusiness%2Fmarket%2Feffective-strategies-to-boost-abandoned-cart-email-conversion-rates%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=PtxSnnbDMNsumNMyaHdzoZZY0jowSqg1LeeFXqplKq4%3D&reserved=0
    > and
    >
    > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.godaddy.com%2Fgarage%2Findustry%2Fretail%2Fecommerce%2Fwant-to-to-increase-sales-reduce-shopping-cart-abandonment%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=aOJ1E7T6ITmYfP4bMNsvQ7dJAj3QrswMl4YK42BQp6c%3D&reserved=0.
    >
    >
    >
    > There are many articles on this topic with varying figures, but they tended
    > to generally note abandonment rates upwards of 60%.
    >
    >
    >
    > The takeaway is that the TMCH-Claims rates observed here in the WG, while
    > different/higher, are arguably not materially different than e-commerce
    > statistics generally (certainly not the 20% noted by Phil Corwin as
    > signaling “a significant difference in the completion of registration.”).
    >
    >
    >
    > It is important here to recall too that many members of the WG have noted
    > that (for a number of reasons) registries, registrars, and registrants may
    > have been sending queries in large numbers, thus skewing the data upwards.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Brian
    >
    >
    >
    > Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration
    > and Mediation Center
    > 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 |
    > E brian.beckham at wipo.int | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wipo.int&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=lenvIEKAPus7F2zCjYUJaxaYKhFe8%2B8rBpfZriFt75Y%3D&reserved=0
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
    > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
    > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0
    _______________________________________________
    gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
    gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
    https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5323a61f9cb343c0017d08d4af42231a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636326145971754867&sdata=uS2vBiv2CKXZWjfp3QvSJDUUIZFpOCXlbaqpWca83yI%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list