<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi All, John Berryhill (who joined us as one of the two URS
experts in our educational session) has asked me to share with you
a URS complaint and response. He also shares concerns about
sending of the .smd file as proof of use because it is not able to
be opened by the URS Examiner or registrant, problems with the
online filing system of at least one of the Providers, use of the
URS for common words, basis of URS proceedings on figurative
marks, and other issues (please see below). <br>
</p>
<p>As we dive into our discussion of what data we need to answer our
high level URS topics, his input and examples may be of interest
and value.</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>A URS Complaint and Response</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE"><br>
</th>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john@johnberryhill.com"><john@johnberryhill.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Kathy Kleiman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Kathy@KathyKleiman.com"><Kathy@KathyKleiman.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Kathy,
I am attaching a URS complaint and response as an example you may share
with the group, which illustrates several aspects of how the URS
functions on a practical level. You may also provide the following
explanatory notes:
This proceeding concerns hello.photo, which is no longer registered to
the respondent in that proceeding and, in fact, was later sold. The
decision is posted here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1570171F.htm">http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1570171F.htm</a>
Notes:
1. The Complaint submission consists of the "Complaint" file, the
"Trademark Information" file, and the TMCH .smd file. It is worth
understanding the TMCH .smd file, and its practical consequences,
because the URS sets up a trap for the unwary in that regard.
The URS deems a TMCH .smd file as proof of use of the mark. In URS
proceedings involving a TMCH record, complainants will dutifully attach
the required .smd file (as I have here). The thing is, nobody really
knows what to use to open the smd file - certainly not the respondent,
and certainly not the panelists either. As the decision notes,
"...Complainant has failed to provide evidence of the current use of the
trademark" even though the point of the TMCH .smd file is to establish
proof of use. It is one of several examples of a disconnect between the
Policy (which suggests the TMCH record is good enough), and the
practical reality that nobody knows what to do with the TMCH data file
that the Policy invites, or what the data file proves. In other words,
if a Complainant relies on the TMCH smd file as "proof of use", then
nobody is going to know what it is supposed to prove, regardless of what
the policy actually says. There are at least two URS decisions I've
seen which point out this flaw in the system as implemented - the policy
invites a piece of evidence which is meaningless to everyone else
involved and which likewise renders one of the supposed benefits of the
TMCH to be worthless.
2. The NAF requires online filing, which does not allow text
formatting, even simple paragraph breaks. After entry of text in the
various fields of the online system, the system then formats the text as
shown in the Response file. To render filings to be actually readable,
it is advisable to (a) prepare the filing offline, (b) copy and paste
the sections into the online form, and (c) provide a formatted copy of
the filings as an exhibit. Compare, for example, the NAF system's
rendering of the Response with the formatted copy of the text in
Respondent's Exhibit D. Which one would anyone prefer to read?
3. This proceeding demonstrates that common words are often the subject
of multiple TMCH filings. For the word "HELLO" there are two TMCH
records, but in the course of reviewing stored TMCH data obtained from
bulk registration, I've seen as many as five TMCH claims on the same
dictionary word. As shown in the exhibits to the response, the
registrant in this instance maintains a record of TMCH claims obtained
for names which it registered, for future reference in order to avoid
use of the name for purposes claimed in the TMCH record.
4. The actual mark in question is a figurative mark which survived two
oppositions and an appeal. Undoubtedly, while the TM claimant likely
relied on the figurative presentation in those proceedings, the
reduction of a hard-won and narrow figurative mark to a "claim on the
word in general" was invited when the TMCH system was modified from its
original proposal of "text only" marks, to whatever unpublished
criterion the TMCH uses to determine whether a textual component is
"dominant".
5. While the word limit on URS complaints is cramped, as the URS is
intended for obvious situations which do not require detailed
explanation, this proceeding also demonstrates the perfunctory types of
complaints which are often filed in domain dispute proceedings generally.
6. One point made by the Examiner is worth considering, as it relates
to general examiner experience, qualifications and training. This
examiner had zero prior experience with domain name dispute adjudication
prior to the URS, and this was the second case handled by this
Examiner. This case was the second URS case this examiner had ever
touched. In the discussion portion of the decision, the Examiner states
in relation to "dictionary word" cases:
"In such cases, for the complainant to prevail, there must be some other
proof to evidence bad faith, such as actual notice of trademark prior to
registration..."
Well, duh. That was the entire point of the TMCH system - to provide
actual notice of trademark claims prior to registration, and which
served its function here. The effect of that prior notice is discussed
extensively in the Response - i.e. that the TMCH claims system provides
the registrant with notice of what uses of a domain name to avoid. The
Examiner reached the correct result, that the name is a dictionary word
not being used for an infringing purpose. But, the Examiner's reasoning
demonstrates a lack of very basic understanding of the role of the TMCH
claims system, which is "wired in" to the way the URS is supposed to
work, in providing prior notice of trademark claims, which the Examiner
apparently failed to grasp despite the Complainant's submission of a
TMCH record, and the Respondent's discussion of having had prior notice
of the claim in connection with magazines. The Examiner's suggestion
that prior notice was absent indicates that the Examiner (a) does not
know that TMCH claims are presented to registrants during launch phase
registrations, (b) does not understand why the Complainant submitted a
TMCH smd file, and/or (c) did not bother to read the material of record
on that very point of prior notice. Correct result, but breathtakingly
inept reasoning by an Examiner with zero relevant experience in domain
disputes (or any other relevant professional experience in IP law
generally), or in how the new gTLD policies were constructed to provide
precisely the prior notice which he appears to believe was absent in
this case.
--
John Berryhill, Ph.d. Esq.
204 East Chester Pike
First Floor, Suite 3
Ridley Park, PA 19078
+1.610.565.5601
+1.267.386.8115 fax
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john@johnberryhill.com">john@johnberryhill.com</a>
</pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>