[Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation

Volker Greimann vgreimann at key-systems.net
Tue Feb 4 09:23:00 UTC 2020


This is not how this works! This is not how any of this works!

All trademark-related requests will always have to go through a 
balancing test, which is not automatable given our current knowledge. 
What you are suggesting is neither legally sound nor acceptable.

People have been trademarking any old word, even single letters can be 
trademarked. The word sex, which is subject to dozens, if not more, 
trademarks is contained in such words as Essex, Sussex, Middlesex, etc.

We also have been over the concept of assertations of infringement not 
being sufficient for CPs to release data on that basis alone.

TM-related requests will not be automatable for the forseeable future.

Best,

Volker

Am 04.02.2020 um 00:22 schrieb King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team:
>
> Hi James,
>
> In your example, if Facebook:
>
>  1. owns a national TM registration for FACEBOOK,
>  2. validates that TM and its proof us use with the TMCH,
>  3. asserts, under penalty of losing their SSAD access, that they
>     allege that the domain is infringing,
>  4. requests data for a domain name that contains an exact match of
>     that same TM, and
>  5. swears/affirms that it will only process the RDS data for the
>     purpose of establishing its legal claim, and for no longer than
>     required, then
>
> it’s legally sound for SSAD to automate that disclosure. There is no 
> potential for “false hits” – the SSAD is able to rely on these 
> safeguards for non-exact match domains.
>
> Also to your point, without limiting the generality of my point above, 
> the TMCH does allow for related “labels” (e.g. brandplusterm).
>
> *Brian J. King *
> Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
>
> T +1 443 761 3726_
> markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>_
>
> *MarkMonitor
> *Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
>
> *From:* James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 3, 2020 5:51 PM
> *To:* King, Brian <Brian.King at markmonitor.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
> Hi Brian and Thomas.
>
>
> I was with you until I got to the second part of #3:  “…/prefix, infix 
> or suffix of the domain name/.”
>
> This is exactly the sort of thing that should be kicked out of 
> automation in favor of human review, as there is too much potential 
> for false hits via string collision.  (e.g.:  “facebook.TLD” and 
> “microsoftsurfacebook.TLD”).
>
> The simplest and most effective automation approach is for exact 
> match, which is aligned with existing systems, like the Trademark 
> Clearinghouse.
>
> Thanks -
>
> J.
>
> -------------
>
> *James Bladel*
>
> *GoDaddy*
>
> *From: *Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "King, Brian 
> via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
> *Reply-To: *"King, Brian" <Brian.King at markmonitor.com 
> <mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, February 3, 2020 at 3:44 PM
> *To: *"gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
> Notice:This email is from an external sender.
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Please let me know if the below does not answer your question(s).
>
> *Brian J. King *
> Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
>
> T +1 443 761 3726_
> markmonitor.com <http://www.markmonitor.com>_
>
> *MarkMonitor
> *Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Thomas Rickert
> *Sent:* Monday, February 3, 2020 3:29 PM
> *To:* gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
> Hi all,
>
> I truly believe we need to talk about what we mean by automation. 
> Reading the latest e-mails I got the impression that we are not 
> thinking along the same lines.
>
> As I tried to outline in LA, I think automation can work if the 
> following parameters are met:
>
> 1. Requestor is a trademark owner, which needs to be verified with the 
> respective trademark office.
>
> 2. The trademark must be life (not just applied for, rejected or expired).
>
> 3. The domain name non-public registration data is asked for is either 
> identical with the trademark or the trademark is a prefix, infix or 
> suffix of the domain name.
>
> Additonally, all safeguards we have identified apply. Automation would 
> not work for figurative marks or where the domain name is allegedly 
> confusingly similar to the trademark. Such cases require manual review.
>
> You might remember I said in LA that our policies require more detail 
> or the use cases require more work. This is exactly what I meant. We 
> need to be specific in what can or must be done in certain cases. The 
> use cases are too broad brush, but I think we can make progress if we 
> continue the exchange of thoughts (as Janis said, this would likely 
> take place before we publish the final report.
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>     Am 03.02.2020 um 21:12 schrieb Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com
>     <mailto:margiemilam at fb.com>>:
>
>     Hi-
>
>     Trying to boil this down to something that easier to understand.
>
>     The proposal doesn’t say that all trademark requests by any
>     trademark holder are to be automated. Instead we are focusing on a
>     smaller subset that is defined narrowly --- those trademarks that
>     have already been validated in the Trademark Clearinghouse,
>     coupled with an assertion of agency by the requestor for the
>     trademark owner that has been made to the authentication body.
>      The domain-name string would need to include that trademark.  The
>     requestor would be subject to the safeguards, and risk losing its
>     accreditation if it submits requests that are improper.
>
>     A requester does not need to prove its entire trademark
>     infringement case to justify disclosure of the redacted data – the
>     data is provided to enable the TM holder to  investigate whether
>     it has a case it wishes to pursue.  The SSAD and contracted
>     parties should not be imposing their understanding of trademark
>     law to judge the veracity of the requestor’ rights – that’s the
>     role of attorneys, judges or UDRP mediators.
>
>     Margie
>
>     **
>
>     *Image removed by sender.*
>
>     *Margie Milam*
>
>     Online IP Enforcement & Protection Lead | Legal IP
>
>     NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain
>     information that is private, confidential, or protected by
>     attorney-client or other privilege.  Unless you are the intended
>     recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its
>     contents.
>
>     *From:*Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Matt
>     Serlin <matt at brandsight.com <mailto:matt at brandsight.com>>
>     *Date:*Monday, February 3, 2020 at 11:45 AM
>     *To:*"brian.kingATmarkmonitor.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__brian.kingatmarkmonitor.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=gfBUjbXa92X_x_J3_1TrJsIiVaIPIOyZ1vvmz5XnQWo&s=xgxN3P8VN_KhpDSFoasma4LiKHLj6A4y0eL17qe00Rs&e=>"
>     <brian.king at markmonitor.com <mailto:brian.king at markmonitor.com>>,
>     "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>"
>     <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
>     *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
>     Hi Brian,
>
>     Just so I’m crystal clear in what you’re saying here…can you
>     confirm this is your viewpoint?
>
>     */Trademark law is complex and nuanced, so we HAVE to automate
>     disclosure of non-public data so that contracted parties aren’t
>     burdened with the review of such disclosure requests?/*
>
>     *//*
>
>     Maybe a real-world example would help my non-legal mind here…
>
>     Brandsight has a trademark for “Brandsight”
>
>     Let’s say a party has registered brandsightconsulting.london
>
>     Is it your assertion that Brandsight would be entitled to
>     automatic disclosure of non-public data*/only/*on the grounds of
>     the registered trademark being included in the domain name?
>
>     Trying to boil down the discussion to something tangible. Thanks.
>
>     Matt
>
>     *From:*Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "King,
>     Brian via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
>     *Reply-To:*"King, Brian" <Brian.King at markmonitor.com
>     <mailto:Brian.King at markmonitor.com>>
>     *Date:*Monday, February 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM
>     *To:*"gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>"
>     <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
>     *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
>     Hi Volker,
>
>     I appreciate the constructive examples.
>
>     In cases like the ones you mention, I think we should be careful
>     about which “standard of review” is appropriate for ICANN and the
>     SSAD to take. In the UDRP context the IP owner has to prove her
>     3.5 elements, but that’s not an appropriate (or possible) standard
>     for disclosure for the purposes of the TM owner establishing her case.
>
>     As an aside, the fact that TM law has its complexities is all the
>     more reason not to burden contracted parties (many of whom don’t
>     employ a trademark attorney (or any attorney), a data protection
>     officer, etc.) with understanding and evaluating even the level of
>     nuance we’re discussing here.
>
>     We propose to establish sufficiently robust safeguards to ensure
>     that disclosure is valid for the third-party purpose of
>     establishing a legal claim. This should be possible within the
>     parameters we’ve suggested. The law allows for Mr. Nike’s data to
>     be processed for the limited time required for this limited
>     purpose, with these safeguards in place.
>
>     *Brian J. King*
>     Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
>
>     T +1 443 761 3726_
>     markmonitor.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.markmonitor.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=8RC76GLir1NviF2oCoXbEWr-oiQyZgysXdFqccFVrDs&s=SaxJ8WbdGHpugdo4spOuk7Z01ZvutjzVUdTBqWbx1P0&e=>_
>
>     *MarkMonitor
>     *Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
>
>     *From:*Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org
>     <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>>*On Behalf Of*Volker
>     Greimann
>     *Sent:*Monday, February 3, 2020 4:47 AM
>     *To:*gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>     *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] IPC Proposal for Day 1 Automation
>
>     Hi Brian,
>
>     we need to discuss this internally, but I see little chance for
>     such an automation proposal at this stage due to issues with the
>     request safeguards.
>
>     Trademark law is a very complex matter and does not lend itself
>     well to automated decision making. Trademark rights are not
>     all-encompassing. To the contary, they are limited both by
>     geographic scope as well as by the trademark categories. The use
>     of an identical string outside the scope is perfectly legal, and
>     even within the scope a legal use is usually possible.
>
>     In your example, a Mr. Nike who is a car dealer could very well
>     register domains that include the words cheap and Nike. If he is a
>     shoe seller, maybe even nike.shoes could be a legitimate use of
>     the string. Just like a Mr. Nissan who still ownsNissan.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nissan.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=gfBUjbXa92X_x_J3_1TrJsIiVaIPIOyZ1vvmz5XnQWo&s=C1ljQtXAAaY6qy1Yw0JzQS-zxEhbSksZdCk8-RD7pA4&e=>.
>
>     So request safeguard 1 already falls short as it will usually need
>     an independant determination of that legal question, not just a
>     statement to that effect by the interested party.
>
>     Best,
>
>     Volker
>
>     Am 27.01.2020 um 21:52 schrieb King, Brian via Gnso-epdp-team:
>
>         Hello EPDP Team,
>
>         Please find below our first proposal for automated disclosure.
>
>         *Trademark Infringement in Domain Name*
>
>         /Requestor Safeguards/
>
>          1. Accreditation Authority determines that the trademark is
>             valid.
>          2. Accreditation Authority determines that Requestor is the
>             legal owner, agent, or service provider of the trademark.
>
>         /Request Safeguards/
>
>          1. Requestor alleges that the domain name infringes
>             Requestor’s trademark.
>          2. Requestor states its own legal basis and purpose for
>             processing the data. Requestor makes a syntactically
>             correct and complete request, including any/all required
>             Authorization Assertions. Requestor makes all
>             representations required by policy: use will be limited to
>             stated purpose, data retention, etc.
>          3. Domain string contains exact match of trademark
>             string(potentially including prefix or suffix, e.g.
>             “nike-shoes.TLD” or “cheap-nike.TLD”).
>
>         /Additional Noteworthy Safeguards/
>
>          1. Registrant committed not to infringe the rights of third
>             parties in its registration agreement, as required by the
>             RA and RAA.
>          2. Registrant was informed at the time that its data was
>             collected that it could be processed for third-party
>             purposes, including intellectual property protection.
>
>         In these cases, disclosure can be automated.
>
>         *Brian J. King*
>         Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
>
>         T +1 443 761 3726_
>         markmonitor.com
>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.markmonitor.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=8RC76GLir1NviF2oCoXbEWr-oiQyZgysXdFqccFVrDs&s=SaxJ8WbdGHpugdo4spOuk7Z01ZvutjzVUdTBqWbx1P0&e=>_
>
>         *MarkMonitor
>         *Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>
>         Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org  <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMD-g&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=tNewvfZExL8wSOcbrqGkVHZnOauBo5glaeBMsDDZvHU&s=3b5SYIQJ3FUgChckembgp_NmBrWqddZO2d0jjz-eT9o&e=>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMD-g&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=tNewvfZExL8wSOcbrqGkVHZnOauBo5glaeBMsDDZvHU&s=sMm6twdvRmgfvumjTyWWXRVVOFxK5Ten0ok893vjsZ0&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos  <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMD-g&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=tNewvfZExL8wSOcbrqGkVHZnOauBo5glaeBMsDDZvHU&s=xjk7wHHcQJVUa-C4L2vH685cETCxLBpRqePmY6NirVs&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>     --
>     Volker A. Greimann
>     General Counsel and Policy Manager
>     *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
>
>     T: +49 6894 9396901
>     M: +49 6894 9396851
>     F: +49 6894 9396851
>     W:www.key-systems.net
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.key-2Dsystems.net&d=DwMD-g&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=tNewvfZExL8wSOcbrqGkVHZnOauBo5glaeBMsDDZvHU&s=S59_kFp4kNR05aRhO8QxsleHQVKSdVqxBD-x6DVJ8Qw&e=>
>
>     Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
>     Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
>     CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
>     Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered
>     in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>     Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Depdp-2Dteam&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=gfBUjbXa92X_x_J3_1TrJsIiVaIPIOyZ1vvmz5XnQWo&s=9z9oXRjeqfdgchCGYtnbswhxImdqioVW7MespLJI8KY&e=>
>     _______________________________________________
>     By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>     your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
>     list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=gfBUjbXa92X_x_J3_1TrJsIiVaIPIOyZ1vvmz5XnQWo&s=pmrhBKgxTcJS4BKYrgVCmXSaUBROSQaFXVYZEWhLzVQ&e=>)
>     and the website Terms of Service
>     (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=OGmtg_3SI10Cogwk-ShFiw&r=qQNCXqU_XE2XIdXbawYmk-YDflYH6pd8ffXlzxU37OA&m=gfBUjbXa92X_x_J3_1TrJsIiVaIPIOyZ1vvmz5XnQWo&s=ZskKTpQMAtAshgeGpT_rSXq6Su1CcdrxuOxVXtZUYUM&e=>).
>     You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership
>     status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting
>     digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for
>     a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-- 
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
*KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*

T: +49 6894 9396901
M: +49 6894 9396851
F: +49 6894 9396851
W: www.key-systems.net

Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of 
Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in 
England and Wales with company number 8576358.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200204/939a5013/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200204/939a5013/image001-0001.jpg>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list