[GNSO-RPM-WG] Question re: TM-PDDRP Draft from Small Group

[Corwin, Philip]

During this morning's call I said I had a question/concern about an aspect of the revised draft coming from the TM-PDDRP small group, and that I would post it on the WG list. This is it (referenced section of the PDDRP below), and it is posted in a personal capacity and not in my role as a co-chair.

 

As we are aware, the purpose of the as yet unutilized PDDRP is to allow a mechanism for complaints by trademark owners, and enforceable remediation where they prevail, when a new gTLD registry operator directly and intentionally infringes a trademark, or when it encourages registrants to register infringing domain names and does so with bad faith intent to profit.

 

My question and concern relates to the proposed addition of the phrase "offering for sale...of domain names". This is problematic because registries do not sell domain names; they enter into standard and uniform registry-registrar agreements with registrars, and it is the registrars who enter into contractual relationships with registrants for the sale and renewal of domain names (DNs). A registry has no control over a registrar's pricing, sales practices, or any domain names it may suggest to a prospective purchaser either via human agent or automated naming suggestion tool. A registry has no power to block a DN from being registered, and only learns the exact DN after it receives notification of the registration from the registrar, along with the technical information required to maintain an accurate database and provide the registry service of directing an inquiry for that DN to the correct server where the website will resolve. 

 

Now registries do designate premium status for certain domain names, and the small group may intend to target aspects of that practice to the extent it can be demonstrated to be tied to deliberate encouragement of second level infringement. 

 

Also, some registries offer their own name suggestion tools, which may occasionally suggest the registration of a trademarked term. But we have to be very careful in that regard, because-

*	Almost every dictionary name in every major language is trademarked for something, somewhere
*	It is unreasonable and impractical to expect registry operators to know, much less proactively check for identical or confusing similarity, every unique trademark registered in every national jurisdiction
*	Under the current UDRP and URS, actionable cybersquatting cannot be based on registration of a trademarked term alone, even if the registrant does so with bad faith intent - there must also be some bad faith use, and it would be even more unreasonable and impractical to imply that registry operators have some duty to monitor the content of every DN that has been registered in a gTLD they operate to check its use.

 

While I realize that a violation of 6.2 requires "bad faith intent to profit", and while the closing lines of this section provide some protection for registry operators - 

 

"it is not sufficient to show that the registry operator is on notice of possible trademark infringement through registrations in the gTLD. The registry operator is not liable under the PDDRP solely because: (i) infringing names are in its registry; or (ii) the registry operator knows that infringing names are in its registry; or (iii) the registry operator did not monitor the registrations within its registry" - 

 

it remains problematic to use the term "'offering for sale" because registries do not sell DNs to registrants and have no direct relationship with them; registries offer and sell registry services to customers known as registrars.

 

I would therefore urge the small group to determine more precisely what acts by registry operators not already covered by the current PDDRP they are seeking to target, and to bring back different language that does not use the phrase "offering for sale".

 

Thanks in advance for consideration of this input.

 

 

 

 

New proposed language in bold

                6.2          Second Level

Complainants are required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that, through the registry operator's affirmative conduct:

(a) there is a substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent by the registry operator to profit from the sale of trademark infringing domain names; and

(b) the registry operator's bad faith intent to profit from the systematic offering for sale or registration of domain names within the gTLD that are identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's mark, which:

(i)                  takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant's mark; or

(ii)                impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant's mark, or

                (iii) creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark. In other words, it is not sufficient to show that the registry operator is on notice of possible trademark infringement through registrations in the gTLD. The registry operator is not liable under the PDDRP solely because: (i) infringing names are in its registry; or (ii) the registry operator knows that infringing names are in its registry; or (iii) the registry operator did not monitor the registrations within its registry.

 

 

 

 

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey