[council] MOTION TO RECOMMEND PROTECTIONS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF NEW GTLDS FOR CERTAIN RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT (RCRC) AND INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (IOC) NAMES
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Nov 9 16:59:15 UTC 2012
Jen, you didn't address the question to me, but perhaps I can give my
views on your questions below.
At 09/11/2012 10:36 AM, Jen Wolfe wrote:
>Hi Jeff & Volker,
>I apologize if I am asking an overly simplistic question as one of
>the new GNSO Council members, but isn't the purpose of this motion
>and PDP to ensure that internet users are not misdirected when
>looking for the one true Red Cross or IOC?
Not really. The Drafting Team could not come to closure of wether the
names should be permanently reserved (perhaps to protect users,
perhaps to save the parties money in reserving or registering the
names so that others could not get them). That question will be dealt
with under the PDP that has just started. This motion protects them
until the PDP is complete, so that IF the PDP recommends long-term
protection, the names will not have been registered (or protected
under TLD-specific rules) in the interim.
> If I am reading the motion correctly, the intention is to reserve
> only exact matches. How is Olympic paints impacted negatively by
> this reservation?
Well, currently Olympic Paints uses olympic.com. The IOC or national
olympic committees seems to have control over that name in most of
the other common TLDs. With the temporary reservation, Olympic Paints
could not register olympic.home, olympic.build or olympoic.repair
(and many others).
> They chose their brand knowing there is a one true IOC and, most
> likely, intended to leverage the goodwill associated with the Olympic name.
Not sure we can attribute motive, but given that in their logo, the I
is a paintbrush clearly resembling an olympic torch, the linkage has
not escaped them.
> It would seem it is in the interest of the greater internet
> community to protect the IOC and Red Cross versus brand owners in
> terms of reservations of rights.
That indeed is one of the main questions. Since protection close to a
reserved name might also be available through the various launch
processes, a related rationale is to save these organization from the
cost and work required to take advantage of such protections. And in
the larger picture who else needs or deserves such protection over
and above that given to traditional trademarks.
>But again, I'm new to the council, so I apologize if I am missing
>any history here that has already addressed this issue.
Sometimes a fresh review can be very useful for all!
>With kindest regards,
More information about the council