- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 549
- Reaction score
- 15
You ain't gona like this one guys:
>> ICANN is currently considering a substantial change to the domain
>> dispute process to enable trademark holders to rapidly shut down
>> domain names that are textually identical or confusingly similar with
>> registered trademarks. The proposal (which can be read at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009
>> -report) was drafted by trademark attorneys for their clients.
>> Importantly, the sessions were held in secret and they excluded
>> others who were proposed as members or who requested to join.
>>
>> The New Uniform Rapid Suspension Scheme represents perhaps the single
>> greatest risk to domain holders in the history of ICANN. Though
>> created for New Gtlds, its authors have openly stated their goal to
>> have it applied to ALL domain extensions. Here is a very general
>> summary. The complete report can be found at: at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
>> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009.
>>
>> 1. Single ADR provider to provide services "at cost" (ensures a
>> trademark community ADR sponsor).
>> 2. 1 page complaint with check-box "elements" and no signature or
>> authenticity statement by the person filing (see form).
>> 3. Complaint may pertain to 0-200+ different domain names and
>> trademarks. There is no limitation and no requirement that a
>> complaint deal with only 1 trademark. Thus, the complaint can
>> theoretically address 200 domains and 200 separate trademarks.
>> 4. Fixed filing fee for Complainant ranging from $200 (0-25 domains),
>> $250 (26-100 domains) and $300 (for 101-200 domains). Over 200
>> domains fee "TBD".
>> 5. Notification by email and regular mail only (No provision for fax
>> notification).
>> 6. 14 day response period, starting from date email notice is
>> provided and posted letter is sent (not received).
>> 7. Response single page check box response (see form) 8. Examination
>> by single panelist appointed by the ADR provider.
>> 9. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO LEGAL STANDARDS. Thus, the examiner is
>> free to apply whatever law they desire (or no law if they think their
>> own ideas are better).
>> 10. Evidence standard is "clear and convincing" that no genuine
>> contestable issue remains.
>> 11. Elements are said to be identical to a UDRP. HOWEVER, legitimate
>> interest is not defined (at all) and the bad faith standards are
>> "non-exclusive". For example, there is no language similar to the
>> legitimate interest defenses in the UDRP. Further, there is no
>> defense based upon the Respondent holding a trademark, business license, etc.
>> 12. The factually intensive nature of legitimate interest/good faith
>> means that respondents must file extensive responses akin to those in
>> a typical UDRP while the complainant is required merely to check the box.
>> 13. If a complaint wins, the Name Servers are disabled and the domain
>> expires at the end of its current registration (thus creating a new
>> problem for the person picking it up on the drop).
>> 14. If a Complainant loses it may appeal, file a de novo (a "do
>> over") UDRP, or proceed to litigation.
>> 15. If a Respondent loses, it may appeal (to a singular ombudsman and
>> pay a fee) or file litigation BUT litigation may ONLY be filed in the
>> jurisdiction of the registrar or registrant. AND, if the respondent
>> files subsequent litigation, it must pay a fee to the ADR provider as
>> a condition for keeping the site live.
>> 16. Abusive Complaints. While paying lip-service to abuses, the
>> proposal defines an "abusive complaint" as one without merit. This
>> is an even higher standard than is set out in the UDRP and there are
>> very few reverse Highjacking rulings. If a complainant has 3 abusive
>> complaints the only penalty is that it may not file a complaint for 1
>> year (presumably it could then have a sister company or licensee do so).
>>
>>
>> The IRT (the committee having written this proposal) has openly
>> stated that while the proposal is for NEW Gtlds, they will push to
>> have the system applied to ALL domain extensions. The system would
>> be incorporated within the registration agreement.
>>
>>
>> This is a serious erosion of rights to the clear benefit of trademark
>> holders who seek to further increase the power of their marks. While
>> claiming not to expand legal existing standards of trademark rights,
>> the system seeks to preclude the registration or use of any domain
>> name if it is textually identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark.
>>
>>
>> The lack of any legal standard to be applied acts to create a
>> "law-unto-itself" in conflict with the national laws and
>> international treaties pertaining to trademarks.
>>
>>
>> The fact that a respondent must file a full "UDRP-type" response
>> places the entirety of the burden upon the respondent and allows the
>> Complainant to obtain a free-look at all defenses and then proceed to
>> a UDRP.
>>
>>
>> A public forum will be held by ICANN in London on July 15, 2009. The
>> event will be held at Royal Institute of British Architects Address:
>> 66 Portland Place | London | W1B 1AD | UK, starting at 9am. There
>> are invited speakers but again, the IRT has filled all scheduled
>> speaking positions with invited trademark guests. That leaves only
>> open microphone comments for the domain industry.
>>
>>
>> Please make plans to attend this event. pre-registration is required
>> which can be done at gTLD Program Global Consultation and Outreach Events.
>>
>>
>> Even if you are not able to speak, your presence (with placards) will
>> send a strong message to ICANN rejecting this attempted land-grab by
>> trademark holders. Please also submit your public comment at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
>> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009. Please try to post a
>> meaningful comment :.
...On that shocker - anybody going to register and attend on the 15th?
Rgds,
Sneezy.
>> ICANN is currently considering a substantial change to the domain
>> dispute process to enable trademark holders to rapidly shut down
>> domain names that are textually identical or confusingly similar with
>> registered trademarks. The proposal (which can be read at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009
>> -report) was drafted by trademark attorneys for their clients.
>> Importantly, the sessions were held in secret and they excluded
>> others who were proposed as members or who requested to join.
>>
>> The New Uniform Rapid Suspension Scheme represents perhaps the single
>> greatest risk to domain holders in the history of ICANN. Though
>> created for New Gtlds, its authors have openly stated their goal to
>> have it applied to ALL domain extensions. Here is a very general
>> summary. The complete report can be found at: at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
>> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009.
>>
>> 1. Single ADR provider to provide services "at cost" (ensures a
>> trademark community ADR sponsor).
>> 2. 1 page complaint with check-box "elements" and no signature or
>> authenticity statement by the person filing (see form).
>> 3. Complaint may pertain to 0-200+ different domain names and
>> trademarks. There is no limitation and no requirement that a
>> complaint deal with only 1 trademark. Thus, the complaint can
>> theoretically address 200 domains and 200 separate trademarks.
>> 4. Fixed filing fee for Complainant ranging from $200 (0-25 domains),
>> $250 (26-100 domains) and $300 (for 101-200 domains). Over 200
>> domains fee "TBD".
>> 5. Notification by email and regular mail only (No provision for fax
>> notification).
>> 6. 14 day response period, starting from date email notice is
>> provided and posted letter is sent (not received).
>> 7. Response single page check box response (see form) 8. Examination
>> by single panelist appointed by the ADR provider.
>> 9. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO LEGAL STANDARDS. Thus, the examiner is
>> free to apply whatever law they desire (or no law if they think their
>> own ideas are better).
>> 10. Evidence standard is "clear and convincing" that no genuine
>> contestable issue remains.
>> 11. Elements are said to be identical to a UDRP. HOWEVER, legitimate
>> interest is not defined (at all) and the bad faith standards are
>> "non-exclusive". For example, there is no language similar to the
>> legitimate interest defenses in the UDRP. Further, there is no
>> defense based upon the Respondent holding a trademark, business license, etc.
>> 12. The factually intensive nature of legitimate interest/good faith
>> means that respondents must file extensive responses akin to those in
>> a typical UDRP while the complainant is required merely to check the box.
>> 13. If a complaint wins, the Name Servers are disabled and the domain
>> expires at the end of its current registration (thus creating a new
>> problem for the person picking it up on the drop).
>> 14. If a Complainant loses it may appeal, file a de novo (a "do
>> over") UDRP, or proceed to litigation.
>> 15. If a Respondent loses, it may appeal (to a singular ombudsman and
>> pay a fee) or file litigation BUT litigation may ONLY be filed in the
>> jurisdiction of the registrar or registrant. AND, if the respondent
>> files subsequent litigation, it must pay a fee to the ADR provider as
>> a condition for keeping the site live.
>> 16. Abusive Complaints. While paying lip-service to abuses, the
>> proposal defines an "abusive complaint" as one without merit. This
>> is an even higher standard than is set out in the UDRP and there are
>> very few reverse Highjacking rulings. If a complainant has 3 abusive
>> complaints the only penalty is that it may not file a complaint for 1
>> year (presumably it could then have a sister company or licensee do so).
>>
>>
>> The IRT (the committee having written this proposal) has openly
>> stated that while the proposal is for NEW Gtlds, they will push to
>> have the system applied to ALL domain extensions. The system would
>> be incorporated within the registration agreement.
>>
>>
>> This is a serious erosion of rights to the clear benefit of trademark
>> holders who seek to further increase the power of their marks. While
>> claiming not to expand legal existing standards of trademark rights,
>> the system seeks to preclude the registration or use of any domain
>> name if it is textually identical or confusingly similar to a registered mark.
>>
>>
>> The lack of any legal standard to be applied acts to create a
>> "law-unto-itself" in conflict with the national laws and
>> international treaties pertaining to trademarks.
>>
>>
>> The fact that a respondent must file a full "UDRP-type" response
>> places the entirety of the burden upon the respondent and allows the
>> Complainant to obtain a free-look at all defenses and then proceed to
>> a UDRP.
>>
>>
>> A public forum will be held by ICANN in London on July 15, 2009. The
>> event will be held at Royal Institute of British Architects Address:
>> 66 Portland Place | London | W1B 1AD | UK, starting at 9am. There
>> are invited speakers but again, the IRT has filled all scheduled
>> speaking positions with invited trademark guests. That leaves only
>> open microphone comments for the domain industry.
>>
>>
>> Please make plans to attend this event. pre-registration is required
>> which can be done at gTLD Program Global Consultation and Outreach Events.
>>
>>
>> Even if you are not able to speak, your presence (with placards) will
>> send a strong message to ICANN rejecting this attempted land-grab by
>> trademark holders. Please also submit your public comment at
>> ICANN | Public Comment - June 2009.
>> Public Comments are open until July 6, 2009. Please try to post a
>> meaningful comment :.
...On that shocker - anybody going to register and attend on the 15th?
Rgds,
Sneezy.
