[GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12

[George Kirikos]

Hi Gerald,

Domain name are intellectual property. As I cited in the proposal itself:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645194/000119312515394008/d30149dex99h4.htm

" “Intellectual Property” shall mean all (a) trademarks, service
marks, ****domain names****, trade dress, logos and trade names and
registrations and applications for registration thereof, (b)
copyrights and registrations and applications for registration
thereof, (c) trade secrets and confidential business information,
including data, methodologies and algorithms relating to market
indices, and (d) other proprietary rights relating to any of the
foregoing. " (emphasis added)

I'm happy to provide you with more citations, if you'd like. Here's a
particularly fun one:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78352055&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Mark: LADASDOMAINS DOMAIN NAMES ARE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

:-)

As for the Voyuer.com case, the following finding is the relevant part:

"As to Respondent’s right to the mark, since Respondent has
demonstrated conclusively that it registered its domain name before a
registration of the trademark was ever attempted. "

The registration of the trademark was attempted on the application
filing date, December 15, 1998:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75605968&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Xedoc Holdings acquired the domain name in dispute, Voyuer.com in
January of 2005, from the prior owner, and the domain's creation date
was in 1997.

Thus, the panel's finding that it "registered its domain name before a
registration of the trademark was ever attempted" is true only if
"registered its domain name" refers to the creation date (in 1997),
since we've already established that the trademark was filed on
December 15, 1998. The panel clearly did not find that January 2005
was the time it "registered its domain name" for the purpose of the
relevant bad faith test.

Sincerely,

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



On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:02 AM,  <gmlevine at researchtheworld.com> wrote:
> Domain names, valuable or not, are not intellectual property. The referenced Virtual Dates (Forum 2005) decision did not rest on a finding that the new owner was a successor in interest.  GmLevine
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:36 AM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Revised Version of URS Proposal #12
>
> [re-sending from my correct email address]
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Attached is the revised version of URS Proposal #12, after discussions with Rebecca on how to handle the unintended consequences she identified in the original proposal. Many thanks to Rebecca for identifying the issue and the solution.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>