[bc-gnso] RE: Melbourne IT proposes special class of TM protection

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve:

Thanks for passing this along. After last week’s ruling in US District Court in 
California reaffirming that ICANN is subject to US antitrust law (based on the 
precedent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the  CFIT case that an ICA 
amicus brief helped revive several years ago) the issue of defensive 
registrations takes on added importance for the entire new gTLD program.

Initial thoughts:

·         The paper asserts “The framework established by ICANN provides 
sufficient protection for the vast majority of organizations that are trademark 
holders. Trademark holders will have the first right to register names in 
relevant categories (e.g. the Hilton hotel chain would have the first right to 
register in Hilton.hotel), and for categories that are not relevant, trademark 
holders will be able to rely on the URS and UDRP procedures to stop the misuse 
of names.” but then goes on to suggest criteria for the High At-Risk Marks 
(HARM) that could be met by many global brands. So it may not be as narrowly 
targeted as it purports to be – although it is not altogether clear how the 
proposed 100 point scoring mechanisms would work.

·         The validation of registrant contact details is, to my understanding, 
an issue that is currently  under discussion in the RAA negotiations.

·         The proposed alterations to the URS raise the issues of loser pays 
for  a single domain (this was already reduced from 25 to 15 names by the 
Board) and adequate due process in terms of response time measured by fee 
payment (automatic suspension if no response in 48 hours; Board already reduced 
response time from 20 to 14 days). ICA’s goal is to assure that URS provides 
adequate due process to registrants prior to domain takedown and does not 
become a SOPA-like process prone to abuse.

While ICA is sympathetic to the potential defensive registration costs that may 
be borne by some TM holders, I will have to survey my members to gauge their 
reactions to these proposals. Each of them is complex and may well spark an 
extended ICANN community discussion that suggests alternative approaches.

Overall, the adoption of such alterations to the existing provisions of the 
Applicant Guidebook would, in my opinion, clearly constitute policy alterations 
and not implementation details and therefore should be subject to the normal 
process for such matters involving the GNSO Council.

Best regards,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:44 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Melbourne IT proposes special class of TM protection

An intriguing proposal.

Melbourne IT Urges ICANN to Consider Stricter Protections to Minimize Consumer 
and Business Harm in New gTLDs

Releases Community Discussion Paper to protect consumers and organizations from 
the misuse of well-known names; Invites concerned organizations to support and 
help further develop policy proposal

http://www.melbourneit.info/news-centre/Releases/Minimizing_HARM_Aug_2012.pdf

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5211 - Release Date: 08/20/12