RE: [Bulk] [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy, this struck me as very surprising as I can't ever recall hearing it
before:  

 

it is required that all entries relate to trademark applications filed
before ICANN announced the applications received (i.e., June 13, 2012)

 

That seems to me to prejudice new businesses since they are forever excluded
from the TMCH rights protection mechanism?

 

So, I think the BC should lobby against that requirement, unless others
believe there is strong reason for it?

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Andy Abrams
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:58 PM
To: Elisa Cooper; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: [Bulk] [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs

 

Dear All,

 

Many thanks to Elisa, J. Scott, Marilyn and Steve for drafting a proposed
comment (attached) to the recent revisions in the RPM requirements.  I
wanted to see if there was interest in further discussion on the first point
made in the comment - the proposal on notice of sunrise period.
Specifically, I would be in favor of a minimum 60-day combined
sunrise/notice period as opposed to a minimum 30-day notice period and
minimum 30-day sunrise period.  I believe that allowing for greater
flexibility in the notice/sunrise timing would encourage more registries to
extend the sunrise period, thereby achieving in many cases the minimum
60-day sunrise originally requested by the BC and IPC during the Strawman
discussions.  A longer sunrise is beneficial to brand owners, as it gives us
more time to plan, budget and correct any errors in the registration
process.  In addition, since many new gTLD registries may have
"anchor-tenant" or other cross-promotional opportunities for brand owners,
having extra time during sunrise could facilitate such negotiations. 

 

I understand that the primary argument for fixing a lengthy notice period is
to perhaps give businesses more of a last-minute chance to enter the
Clearinghouse prior to a particular registry's launch.  However, I
respectfully believe that this is a bit of an edge case, and we would be
better served advocating for a longer sunrise period.  There is one central
Clearinghouse for all of the new gTLD registries, so there is no advantage
to trying to strategically "time" the submissions, and last-minute national
trademark applications would be ineligible for sunrise protection anyways,
as it is required that all entries relate to trademark applications filed
before ICANN announced the applications received (i.e., June 13, 2012).  I
acknowledge that further education may be necessary to ensure that brand
owners submit their Clearinghouse entries in a timely fashion, so it may be
useful to encourage ICANN to team up with various trademark organizations
(such as INTA) to publicize that the Clearinghouse is now open.

 

I do agree with the current draft's criticism of the ability to allocate
names 30 days from the date of notice, no matter how much time is left in
the official sunrise period.  All requests for sunrise registration should
be compiled at the end of sunrise, and then analyzed for competing,
identical requests.

 

I look forward to hearing others' thoughts.  Thank you for your
consideration.

 

Best,

 

Andy

-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043

 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752