[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

[Bret Fausett]

You’ll get no quarrel from me on imposing a cost. There are real costs involved for the companies that are required to review and adjudicate these disputes, so those costs should be reimbursed. I think challengers would be fine with the costs if the rewards were adjusted to ensure they had a better outcome (the domain in question). If they don’t get the domain at the end of the process, we are just counting on them to be working for the public good. 

       Bret


> On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> First, if a person challenges a Sunrise Registration at the registry and wins, they should be awarded the domain name. Why is it the cost of obtaining a domain name from a bad-faith Sunrise registrant gets everyone up in arms, but the enormous cost of preventing fraud and consumer confusion borne by trademark owners is seen as “just the cost of doing business in the online world”? I am all for finding cost-effective mechanism for a good faith registrant to obtain a domain name the was improperly registered under Sunrise, but there is going to be a cost.
>  
> J. Scott
>  
>  
> <image001.gif>
> J. Scott Evans
> 408.536.5336 (tel)
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> Director, Associate General Counsel
> 408.709.6162 (cell)
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>	
> www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com/>	
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com>
> Date: Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:55 AM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today
>  
>> to the extent there are issues with the bona fides of individual registrations, the underlying trademark registration, and its recordal in the TMCH (www.trademark‑clearinghouse.com/dispute <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclearinghouse.com%2Fdispute&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd34c513ef31a415c792b08d482858b3f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636276957460088884&sdata=XBslWFTeBK1aE23jA09owCwmDa7iiVCRfvuev0%2FVVhU%3D&reserved=0>) are already subject to challenge.  Would you be able to help this group understand why you view these as insufficient measures?
> 
>  
> I think any challenge mechanism that relies on good samaritans for enforcement is insufficient. 
>  
> If I am pre-empted in my registration of “internet.TLD” or “online.TLD,” because someone had registered them in sunrise with “marks” that should not have been approved, my options at that point are to file a TMCH dispute, which costs at least $200 and will last for at least a month. At the end of that process, even if I am right, the trademark is marked as invalid, but I don’t get the domain name that I was blocked from registering. 
>  
> If I want to file a sunrise challenge with the registry, depending on the registry’s policy, I may be awarded the domain name, but I am not guaranteed to be awarded the domain name. Those processes also take time and money. 
>  
> So it really takes a determined individual or company, with time and money, to pursue these challenges. 
>  
> If I were adjusting these processes for Round 2, I would give the complainant a presumptive right to register the challenged domains if and after the TMCH registration was deemed invalid. That would provide better motivation to pursue the existing remedies.
>  
>       - Bret
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170413/d7d35c00/attachment.html>