RE: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is very helpful. Thanks.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:11 PM
To: zahid@xxxxxxxxx; 'bc - GNSO list'; Philip Sheppard; Mike Rodenbaugh; BC
Secretariat
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Re: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse -
being sold as Christmas Gift to TM Holders

 

Zahid - Thanks for raising the alarm about this 'white elephant' of a
Christmas gift.  I am checking with my members, but it seems best to reject
the gift as a comprehensive solution to defensive registrations.    Trick is
to avoid looking like we are just attempting to slow-down the new gTLD
launch.  Perhaps we do something like this:

We could agree that the Clearinghouse has a very limited benefit - just a
way to cut costs for TM owners having to monitor multiple parallel sunrise
periods.  But that's ALL it is, so we should neither consider nor accept
this Clearinghouse mechanism as the required solution for defensive
registrations.  

--Steve


On 12/2/09 2:19 AM, "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not sure if this got to the list.  Gary, would it possible to make sure this
gets posted.  Thanks.

                                       Sincerely,Zahid
JamilBarrister-at-lawJamil & JamilBarristers-at-law219-221 Central Hotel
AnnexeMerewether Road, Karachi. PakistanCell: +923008238230Tel: +92 21
5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025Fax: +92 21 5655026www.jamilandjamil.com*** This
Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

From: "Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:44:11 +0500
To: 'bc - GNSO list'<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Urgent! Do we kill the Trademark Clearinghouse - being sold as
Christmas Gift to TM Holders
Dear All,
 
As you all know that Trademark protection is a major issue for launch of new
gTLDs.
 
The concern:
There is a concern that the IP clearing house (the way its developing in the
Special TM Implementation-STI Working Group which is supposed to send
recommendations to the GNSO for being placed before the ICANN Board) may be
an eyewash/placebo. 
 
It doesn't address any of the pre-launch concerns of Trademark Mark Holders
(TM Holders) such as defensive registrations.  
 
But it is being presented as a great compromise/favour and 'Christmas gift'
to TM Holders.  
 
Here are some of the aspects that may be useful for you to know and provide
views on:
 
 
Who pays:
TM Holders have to PAY ANNULLAY to be in the TM Clearinghouse - (Registry's
suggest that only TM Holders pick up the cost even though Registry's get a
windfall cost saving for pre-launch for sunrise and pre-launch IP claims) 
 
 
What is included in it:
The IP Clearinghouse ONLY includes Nationally Registered Marks (NO common
law marks can be included nor any other types of protected names)
 
 
With what does my brand match:
One would expect that as in Mark Monitor and even self-searches not only the
brand name but variants would be matched.  
 
NO. 
 
The match is defined as ONLY IDENTICAL/EXACT match  i.e. If the brand is
"Yahoo", the only time a match for the services mentioned below would be
triggered is if someone tried to register the domain name "yahoo.TLD" - and
that's it.
 
However,  "yahoos.TLD", "yahoosearch.TLD" or "yahoosports.TLD" or
"searchyahoo.TLD" etc. would NOT be matched.
 
 
What is this database used for:
For only PRE-LAUNCH (so it serves no purpose to be in the Clearing house
POST-launch):
 
Sunrise - for which a TM Holder may have to PAY for dispute resolution in
case another TM holder's rights conflicts with theirs - AND - forcing TM
Holders to defensively PAY for registering domain names as abundant caution
to ensure that registrants don't get them once the gTLD is launched -
remember, however, the match is only for IDENTICAL
 
Or
 
IP Claims Notice- this is nothing more than a notice provision to people
attempting to register the IDENTICAL domain as the brand in PRE-LAUNCH ONLY.
In Pre-launch, if someone tries to register 'yahoo.TLD', then they get a
notice telling them that their application matches with a brand in the IP
Clearinghouse.  They are asked if they affirm that they will only use this
for legitimate purposes (paraphrase) - they accept by clinking 'affirm' and
they get the domain name.  The TM holder only gets a notice that such a
registration has been allowed once the new gTLD has launched to then decide
whether to file a UDS, UDRP or Court case.  No notices, however, in case
someone tries to register "yahoosearch.TLD".
 
 
How can this be gamed:

As a bad actor I wait and don't register any domains with are EXACT matches
in PRE-LAUNCH such as "yahoo.TLD" and wait for the first 30 seconds of the
new gTLD being launched and register then to CIRCUMVENT the entire "WHITE
ELEPHANT" for which as Brand holder I am being forced to PAY to keep it
running.
 
But as a bad actor I can register "yahoos.TLD", "yahoosearch.TLD" or
"yahoosports.TLD" or "searchyahoo.TLD" etc. in PRE-LAUNCH and POST-LAUNCH
and I won't get a notice and the Brand holder won't get a notice.
 
 
One advantage is that there will be one registration of TM (ANNUALLY PAID
FOR RENEWALS) for Sunrise and so all new Registry's won't have to spend
money on Consultancy/Admin etc. for Sunrise - so it's really a SUNRISE
CLEARING HOUSE for cutting Registry costs.
 
 
My opinion: This doesn't help small businesses nor does it help developing
country Brand owners since they probably won't be participating in Sunrise
and pre-launch.
 
This IP CLEARINGHOUSE is being presented as a great compromise by
Registries, Registrars and Non-Commercials.  One even described it offline
as a 'Christmas Gift' to Trademark Holders.
 
Options:

We state our objections but let it go through.  This then becomes for the
Board a solution for defensive registrations by TM holders and so seemingly,
for the record, addresses Brand holders' concerns in Pre-Launch and
defensive registrations.
OR
We state clearly that we as TM Holders don't want this solution since it
fails to address/solve the real problems identified by Brand Holders.
 
 
 A thought:  would not being in the IP CLEARINGHOUSE be seen as not being
vigilant in protecting your brand name thus creating a legal imperative to
forcibly have to register and PAY to be in it?  I don't know.
 
 
Just as background.  This Clearing house was an adjunct and ancillary piece
of technology/database to facilitate the Globally Protected Marks List
(GPML).  Now that the GPML has been jettisoned,  this ancillary to GPML
(byproduct) is still being proposed by the Board & Staff as a solution for
Trademark protection in for new gTLDs.
 
A Solution looking for a problem to solve?
 
 
This is my humble and very quick attempt to try and simplify the issue and
would welcome any additions or clarifications or corrections.  The STI is
supposed to have a conference call on this in 2 days.
 
Hope this helps and looking for feedback.
 

 
 
 

Best regards,
 
 
Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> 

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.




-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org 
+1.202.420.7482