[gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH

[J. Scott Evans]

Jeremy:

First, even in a .fruit there is no guarantee that apple.fruit would be used for supporting the benefits of the fruit. However, if someone would take responsibility for the use of the second level TLD, that would be different. I am sure a multi-national computer company would have no problem with folks registering and using domains for generic or descriptive purposes or for unrelated purposes. The problem that there is no easy way to thwart having to file an expensive UDRP or more expensive lawsuit to police the misuse of one’s mark. If registries and registrars would enforce the provision of their contracts where the registrant represents that its domain does not infringe on the rights of others that would be one thing, but they don’t. If all new TLDs were sponsored or chartered wherein registration in the TLD required upfront verification that the registrant was in the class of persons for whom the TLD operates (e.g., like a .bank) or if domains were not sold on a first come, first served basis (like Yellow Pages ads in the old phone books), then we wouldn’t have the issues we do.
There are many cost-effective and efficient solutions beyond the Sunrise, but it also would greatly effect the artificial scarcity created by first come, first served sales and the bottom-line of registries that would actually need to take some responsibility to police their TLDs or at least assist TM owners by taking down infringements.

J. Scott


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
www.adobe.com
 
 
 

On 4/14/17, 10:11 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

    On 13/4/17 8:47 pm, Greg Shatan wrote:
    > However, I don't think number 2 qualifies as gaming or abuse -- except
    > to the extent the trademark owner is being gamed or abused. Indeed,
    > one of the failed assumptions of the New gTLD Program seems to have
    > been that trademark owners would buy even more defensive registrations
    > than they did.
    
    So there's nothing wrong with a company that has a trademark for
    computers sunrise registering that trademark in a gTLD that relates to
    fruit on the strength of its computer trademark, locking out those who
    would actually use that domain name to sell fruit?  Sounds like abuse to me.
    
    -- 
    Jeremy Malcolm
    Senior Global Policy Analyst
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feff.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda89a42909874020ab7508d483595a8e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277867187569726&sdata=53cryis1ic5Aq0Zn80j%2FXUfwktHMu7VIHk5ralgf6d4%3D&reserved=0
    jmalcolm at eff.org
    
    Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
    
    :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
    
    Public key: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cda89a42909874020ab7508d483595a8e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277867187579734&sdata=pTNkQMHCd6%2FcpDWTIg3ru3r9LvEZUvvvPUIcSehf1mM%3D&reserved=0
    PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122