[Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13

Wed Aug 14 21:07:30 UTC 2019

KAVOUSS – you asked me about the Specification 13 discussion – please see the thread below – maybe read from the bottom.  Anne

Alexander,
No one decided that brands could not apply if the brand happened to also be a word that was generic for SOME OTHER good or service.  If someone else applied for the generic meaning of the word, then the brand lost.  I hope you are not suggesting that Apple shouldn’t have .apple because it happens to be a fruit?  There are so many different possible new gTLDs available that I think it is wrong to conclude that this confers  “monopoly” of some sort.  What about .applegrowers or .buyapples or .gotapples  .appleorchard or .loveapples.

VISA is clearly a worldwide well-known brand for its global payment technology/credit card services.   https://usa.visa.com/legal/visa-nic.html
As far as I know, no one applied for a “generic” .visa or .visas gTLD.

ORANGE is a very well-known brand for Internet services based in France but operating in many countries. It is not for oranges. https://www.orange.com/en/nic/domains
I am guessing no one applied for oranges as a generic.  Otherwise they would have won.

The big gaming issue in the next round is the question whether someone applies for the generic version of a TLD if they know a brand that has a name that can be construed as generic will or may be applying.  If application fees come way down in future, I could spend $50,000 (plus some fees to write up an application and get a pre-qualified Registry Services Provider in place) and then hope the brand (that happens to have a generic name that is fanciful as to its products) and gamble on the brand(s) me out for much bigger money.

As application fees come down and associated operational plans are standardized, we are not far from a time when well-funded players could speculate in new gTLD names.  For example,  if a large online retailer or multinational high tech company (such as major search engine provider) wanted to apply for a number of .brands and then set those up within its system and offer those to the brands as an “online sales service”, nothing would stop them other than a well-crafted Legal Rights Objection.

Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:19 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Rubens,

like "visa" for "visas"? Or "orange" for "oranges"?

Why did they got a Spec13?

Alexander

Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Date: 8/14/19 22:18 (GMT+02:00)
To: trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com>
Cc: alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13

Note that generic strings are defined in the RA in a way much narrower than the commonplace definition of a generic term.

"“Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others."

Rubens

> Em 14 de ago de 2019, à(s) 11:51:000, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>> escreveu:
>
> Alexander,
>
> Please also note that Spec 13 does not require just “some trademark registration” and specifically excludes generic string TLDs.  Christopher conveniently “forgot” to point out that Section 9.3 of Spec 13 requires:
>
> (i) the TLD string is identical to the textual elements protectable under applicable law, of a registered trademark valid under applicable law, which registered trademark:
>
> a. is recorded with, and issued a signed data mark file by, the Trademark Clearinghouse or any successor or alternative trademark validation authority appointed by ICANN, if such trademark meets the eligibility requirements of such validation authority (provided that Registry Operator is not required to maintain such recordation for more than one year);
>
> b. is owned and used by the Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the ordinary course of Registry Operator’s or its Affiliates’ business in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services claimed in the trademark registration;
>
> c. was issued to Registry Operator or its Affiliate prior to the filing of its TLD registry application with ICANN;
>
> d. is used throughout the Term continuously in the ordinary course of business of Registry Operator or its Affiliate in connection with the offering of any of the goods and/or services identified in the trademark registration;
>
> e. does not begin with a period or a dot; and
>
> f. is used by Registry Operator or its Affiliate in the conduct of one or more of its businesses that are unrelated to the provision of TLD Registry Services; and
>
> (ii) only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or Trademark Licensees are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records associated with domain names at any level in the TLD;
>
> (iii) the TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11); and
>
> (iv) Registry Operator has provided ICANN with an accurate and complete copy of such trademark registration.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marc H. Trachtenberg
> Shareholder
> Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
> Tel 312.456.1020
> Mobile 773.677.3305
> trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com>
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:42 AM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13
>
> *EXTERNAL OF GT*
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Don’t forget: I am ALL FOR famous (well known) TMs to be able to secure their brand as gTLD! I just think for generic term-based and geo name--based  strings a spec 13 application (which locks out the general public) should meet WAY higher hurdles than just “some trademark registration”.
>
> Otherwise: Yes, I have grossly simplified the rather complex intellectual property rights cloud. There are of course IR TMs and (e.g. in Germany) enhanced protections for famous TMs that extend well beyond the goods and services originally protected.
>
> Thanks for clarifying,
>
> Alexander
>
>
> From: McGrady, Paul D. [mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 14. August 2019 17:15
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13
>
> Thanks Alexander.
>
> Respectfully, your analysis is incorrect.  While trademarks are local (state), national, or international (EU marks, Benelux marks) in nature there are protections for trademarks found in International law, e.g. the Paris Convention.  I wouldn’t expect anyone in this WG to know that other than the trademark attorneys who participate, so good you brought it up so that I could set the record straight.  Your second notion, that trademarks are limited to corresponding goods/services is mostly true (except in jurisdictions that recognize the doctrine of dilution for the protection of famous marks.  This would be a more interesting point if gTLD registry applications came with restrictions, i.e. that an applicant made it clear that they have applied for .apple to run an apple farm and that they pledge in advance that there will be no second level registrations that would contain terms or could be used to infringe the APPLE mark (for example, no ability to register computer.apple or use store.apple to sell electronics).  Those restrictions would then be incorporated in PICS and brand owners could enforce against registries accordingly.  However, ICANN has put no use requirements in place for applicants to agree to, so until they do, we have to take a broad view of trademark rights in order to protect consumers from confusion and malicious activities.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
> Taft /
>
> Paul D. McGrady / Partner
> Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
> 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
> Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
> Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
> Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
> www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>
>
> Taft Bio
>
> Taft vCard
>
> Subscribe to our law updates
>
>
>
>
>
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
>
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:55 AM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13
>
> Christopher,
>
> Brilliant. You pointed out an important factor that the brand lobby conveniently “forgot” to point out:
>
> The brand lobby claims that TM law is international law – and therefore protected brands were also protected in their representation on the top-level in the DNS. This however falls short (and btw THANKS to your excellent input here Christopher) on not just ONE but even TWO levels:
>
> • Most trademarks (and by extension all “brands”) are protected on NATIONAL level – while a gTLD in the DNS is a global registration! At bare minimum such TM should be valid in e.g. the majority of all nations (aka: more than 90).
> • Trademarks do NOT protect a “string” – they always ONLY protect the usage of a given string in connection with a very, very narrow defined set of goods and services. The “APPLE” TM doesn’t protect “APPLE” – it protects the USAGE (and in commerce only!) of “APPLE” for branding computers, laptops, etc! Of 100% of goods and services globally this protects just a few dozen out of hundreds of millions of potential use cases. It’s an INCREDIBLE narrow defined protection. There could be literally MILLIONS of trademarks “APPLE” globally - peacefully living in coexistence.  But there can only be ONE gTLD “.apple”.
>
> Putting 1 and 2 together I think we might have to rethink spec 13 altogether. At BARE MINIMUM spec 13 should NOT be available for geo-name-based and generic dictionary keyword-based strings. There is neither a global right to such string, nor one that extends over ALL goods and ALL services. These need to be “available for the general public”.
>
> It is perfectly legal to register (and enforce its protection) “APPLE” for computers and laptops. But always at your own risk! And new gTLDs are such “risk”. You wanted a “catchy” brand – and used a common keyword. Fine. Just don’t try to hijack that keyword on global level of the DNS. It is NOT “yours” – you are merely allowed to “use” it. (using APLLE here only as example – and I will exonerate APPLE in the next paragraph).
>
> Spec 13 makes a certain sense – just not for geo names and dictionary terms. If somebody feels the urge and need to “block” such (generic or geo based)  gTLD – they need to meet a certain standard. And a US $299 TM registration doesn’t meet ANY standard. We need to have much higher hurdles – like ACTIVELY USED Trademarks in at least 50 countries aged 5 years or older for example. That would be no problem for the APPLEs, ORANGEs or MANGOs in this world. But just only a “Trademark registration” “SHANGHAI” in one or two jurisdictions? Why empowering them to block the identity of a 24 Million community (in fact larger than 2/3 of all countries globally)?
>
> I am not “anti-brand”: I think large scale brands have the potential to create an IMMENSE visibility for new gTLDs (if after SEVEN YEARS of application they would finally start to make active use of their TLDs). I just want to avoid that tiny players abuse the protections we are installing for big players. This btw protects also the big players! So I WANT that .apple is with APPLE, Inc – because that is PRECISELY what the Internet user assumes it should be! I just would find it very sad if a small, national operating shoe label “Shanghai” got “.shanghai” for US $25k – depriving 24 Million people and their constituents (businesses, organizations, associations, Government) of their ability to identify themselves with .shanghai domains!
>
> So: “THINK BIG” :D
>
> Alexander
>
>
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Sent: Dienstag, 13. August 2019 20:19
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13
>
>
> Good evening:
>
> Following a chat exchange during a recent call,, I have reviewed the Specification 13 .BRAND TLD provisions, dated 31 July 2017, *
> For present purposes I shall limit my comments to section 9. Definitions :
> 9.3 (i) The header refers to “a registered trademark valid under applicable law …” from which one might infer that it refers to ANY registered trademark. In which case, it would beg the question quid identical trademark strings registered in different jurisdictions and activities?
>
> I believe that the PDP and WT5 have yet to take fully on board that a gTLD confers a global on line monopoly whereas in all other contexts, trademarks and geographical names do not. Thus a .BRAND TLD not only creates additional rights for the Registry, over and above those provided for by the original trademark, but also denies other trademark rights holders from using the same string on-line as a .brand
>
> An analogous issue has arisen in connection with Geographical names.
>
> 9.3 ( i) b. The language is rather open ended: “… business in connection with the offering… claimed in the trademark registration;” might be open to quite broad interpretations.
>
> 9.3 (iii) “the TLD is not a Generic String”.  This is very welcome. I have argued, with others, ab initio in WT5 that geographical names are not Generic. I am glad to see that there is an approved precedent.
>
> 9.5 (iv) Again, the language “…reasonably related to any of the goods and services identified … “ is rather open ended.
>
> How has this been implemented by .brands that have already been delegated?
> Thankyou for your interest in this matter
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
> * https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-specification-13-31jul17-en.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190814/5f12dbca/attachment-0001.html>