<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>The problem of ICANNs solution seems to be that they are
sometimes overdesigned and overprotect certain rights while at the
same time discriminating against legitimate use. For example,
while trade marks must be reasonable protected against reasonable
abuse, that does not necessarily equate to early exclusive sunrise
access as that "solution" frustrates all potential registrants who
would also have have a legitimate right to register and use of the
domain name string without infringing upon any trademark rights
for the same string, yet the trade mark holder is given prefered
access. <br>
</p>
<p>With the protection mechanisms currently in place, the community
has essentially accepted overprotection and given trademark
holders rights that go beyond the legal protections and rights
trademark holders enjoy. The positive trade-off is substantial
savings on the side of TM holders as they can pro-actively prevent
certain abusive uses instead of having to taking a reactive and
costly legal approach after the fact. <br>
</p>
<p>And of course the current approach also enables abuse by
trademark shopping by encouraging registrations of trash marks
just to get access to certain desirable domain names. <br>
</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 02.02.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Lori
Schulman:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR12MB0729FE78837D9CC54244D9AAD34C0@CY1PR12MB0729.namprd12.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Recognition
of the importance of protecting trademark rights in the DNS
has been essential to ICANN’s policymaking since before
ICANN was organized. Per J Scott’s note, trademark rights
are government granted rights. Domain names are not. While
some domain names can function as trademarks in the legal
sense of the word, domain names are licensed assets with no
inherent vested rights. This makes them fundamentally
different than trademarks. The difference creates the
tensions that we see when discussing how trademark rights
should be addressed/recognized within the domain system.
The UDRP/URS were designed to keep costs down for both sides
of a domain dispute as the administrative process
contemplated is much less expensive and onerous than a court
driven process. Having managed very large and very small
portfolios of trademarks and domains throughout my career, I
can tell you that this is empirically true no matter the
size of the business either as a plaintiff or defendant in a
dispute. Forcing trademark owners into court will force
domain registrants there too and in much higher number than
we see today. The UDRP is a reasonable alternative to what
would otherwise be an endless stream of lawsuits overloading
already burdened court systems. The use issue forms the
fundamental core of trademark protection and different
jurisdictions have different standards for when use must be
demonstrated and what qualifies as good use. This requires
deep expertise and knowledge of trademark law. If we were
to create some kind of use test in the TMCH beyond what is
already there, costs would significantly increase as you
would need essentially a trademark office-like system for
review and dispute resolution. In terms of gaming the
system, so far, I have seen much more gaming by investors
than I have seen by brands…as brands have been targeted by
the investors in very well publicized instances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">In
terms of your math, George, I would be absolutely be in
favor of lowering the costs of a UDRP as it would lower
barriers of entry for small businesses and noncommercial
organization who are continually victimized by cyber
squatters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">Lori
S. Schulman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">Senior
Director, Internet Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">International
Trademark Association (INTA)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#595959">+1-202-704-0408,
Skype: lsschulman<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
style="width:2.8645in;height:1.5625in"
id="Picture_x0020_5"
src="cid:part1.44A91AD5.E1DFD995@key-systems.net"
alt="cid:image005.jpg@01D270D2.1801CD20" height="150"
width="275"></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>George Kirikos<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<br>
<br>
(and trying to combine multiple responses in one email)<br>
<br>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com%3e">trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com></a>
wrote:<br>
> I think you are trying to apply domain speculation
thinking where it is all about monetary value to protection of
trademark rights, which is not necessary focused or valued in
terms of specific monetary value. They are not the same thing.<br>
><br>
> If life isn’t fair is an acceptable justification then
why change the current system because it is not fair that some
may have gamed it by using trademark registrations obtained
solely for the purpose of registering valuable domain names
during sunrise? You can’t have it both ways.<br>
<br>
1. The "domain speculation thinking" is your term for what is
simply<br>
rational economic decision-making. Even for trademark
protection,<br>
rational trademark holders prioritize enforcement based on a<br>
comparison between the economic benefit of stopping the abuse
relative<br>
to the economic cost of that enforcement.<br>
<br>
2. The "life isn't fair" in my statement was referencing the
fact that<br>
not everyone has the same wealth. That is entirely different
from<br>
those misusing trademark registrations obtained solely for the
purpose<br>
of registering valuable domain names -- those TMs would be
invalid in<br>
jurisdictions requiring use (and thus shouldn't have been
granted in<br>
the first place).<br>
<br>
3. Some folks continue to dance around the issue, and ignore
the<br>
economics completely. Each and every time you try to add a
wrinkle to<br>
the procedure (i.e. "tweaks" that seek to give better proof of
use, or<br>
other modifications), all that does is slightly change the
"costs" for<br>
some actors, but doesn't change the underlying economics by
much. i.e.<br>
it attempts to impose a "price" indirectly, rather than
explicitly and<br>
directly setting a price that would actually change behaviour.<br>
<br>
4. For those saying "small" trademark holders would be
affected ---<br>
fine, change the economics accordingly --- should the quota be
10,000<br>
marks? Should the cost be $1? Once you make the cost
explicitly be $1,<br>
that just says "Fine, we're going to accept all the gaming
behaviour,<br>
because we're prepared to look the other way!" That's an
invitation to<br>
those who are misusing the sunrise periods to continue doing
what<br>
they're doing.<br>
<br>
While some constituencies in the GNSO might be fine with that
balance<br>
(i.e. accept every TM, and allow all kinds of abuse of the
sunrise<br>
periods), other constituencies might draw the line for that
balance<br>
elsewhere.<br>
<br>
5. Let me give you an example -- ACPA allows damages of up to
$100,000<br>
for cybersquatting. That's an explicit cost on cybersquatters
that<br>
they take into account, and has a deterrent effect. What if
that limit<br>
instead was $500? Behaviour would obviously change
accordingly,<br>
because cybersquatters are rational.<br>
<br>
6. A further example -- it costs $1000+ to file a UDRP (on top
of<br>
legal costs, so a number like $5000 might be more relevant for
those<br>
who use lawyers). If the total costs were $300, there would be
a lot<br>
more filings (which would reduce the benefits of
cybersquatting, and<br>
thus change the economics of abuse).<br>
<br>
In conclusion, the economics of all the actors are paramount,
and seem<br>
to be mostly ignored. By focusing on those economics directly,
as<br>
policymakers we can precision-target the policies to directly
target<br>
those behaviours, and reduce all the "collateral damage" on
the<br>
innocent actors.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
</body>
</html>