ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Rapid Suspension System.

  • To: irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Rapid Suspension System.
  • From: NexCorp LLC <nexcorp@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 14:08:43 -0500

Ladies and gentlemen, please consider what you are contemplating with this
rapid suspension proposal.   As with any new program, there is always the
potential for abuse.  While we understand that cybersquatting and trademark
infringement is a serious issue, there are already fair and equitable
policies and LAWS that allow trademark holders to remedy any violations and
punish violators.  Is there going to be a monetary penalty to thwart would
be abusers from attempting to shut down legitimate sites if they lose thier
case?  If somebody has an english word parked and there are ads relaitng to
dictionary definitions of that word, but some trademark holder wished he had
the traffic because his TM is similar to that word, are you going to take an
english word away yet again.  The UDRP in its current form is fair and
equitable, as far as the process goes.  Remember, we are trying to stop
blatant offenders. What you are proposing can open up a pandoras box of
blatant offenses from the other side, at the cost of innocent parties.  I
own smashed.com.  I have had it for some time.  It is a simple word.  So is
the band smashingpumkins, smashmouth, or worse yet, there is a movie in the
works called *Smashed*, and will the owners of these entities simply make a
request to shut down my site cause we share a common commercial interest in
useing various forms of the word SMASH.  Have you ever heard of Due
Process?  Have you ever heard the phrase innocent until proven guilty?  What
is wrong with this is that you are now proposing to presume guilt without
due process, and Im telling you people are going to be wrongly accused, and
they will be financially harmed, and their reputations may be damaged, and
Im telling you, if it happens to me I will hire the best attorneys in the
world make sure I am compensated for all the damage.  Yes, Icann will be
sued, as what you are proposing to do is circumvent due process and usurp
the powers that the american people have provided granted to the US
government.  It is very close to a violation of free speech when you tell
the owner of KNOT.com that even though the definition of the word KNOT is *a
bond, especially the marriage bond*, you proceed to take that name from him
for providing links to marriage related goods and services.  UDRP did just
that, but at least he had a chance to argue his point, that the use of the
word in relation to its definition should be protected, even if  the
comapany who chose "THE KNOT" as thier trademark was intentioanlly trying to
capitalize on a centuries old association of a word and marriage.  That is
wrong to give them ownership of the word and not allowing anybody else to
use it in trealtion to its definition.  But it happened.  Thats like saying
I cant use the word Apple to sell fruit cause somebody set of a fruiit stand
called Apples.    So no.   You absolutely need to allow due process period.
Now Im going to give you an example why.

I own the domain anme SqueezeBox.com

A short while ago, I was approached by a representative of Logitech, a
company that makes peripheals.  They have a device called a SqueezeBox music
player.  They have a trademark for it.   They are a 2 billion market cap
aompany and nopw they want my name and I declined to sell it to them.  Now I
knwo I cant sell music players or put up a website thats related to MP3s or
streaming music.  They have succesfully gained exclusive rights to that
use.   But, look at my site www.squeezebox.com,  and tell me, if Logitech
should request to shut my site down, are you going to do so just because of
the request and they have a TM, and ignore the fact that there is no
trademark violation, ignore the fact that a *squeezebox* is a device that
plays music and is also called an accordian, that there is a band called
Squeezebox that play what?  Music, and ignore the fact that
squeezebox.comwas registered long before logitech bought the company
that makes the
squeezebox player. A SqueezeBox (accordian) has been associated with music
for ever it seems, yet, the USPTO now hands the right to use the phrase
squeezebox in relation to music over to Logitech.  What, we cant call
accordians squeezeboxes anymore?  Are you going to allow them to shut my
site down if they request it?  I want to know the answer to that.  If it
happens, somebody is going to owe me a lot of money.

So you had better not allow a simple request to be the only criteria.   We
need due process.  We are innocent until proven guilty.

John W McKanna
Nexcorp LLC of Illinois

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy