Nestlé's Comments in Support of RPM in the new gTLDs
Dear Sir or Madam, Nestlé is the the world's foremost Nutrition, Health and Wellness company and its brands are valuable assets. Nestlé welcomes and supports the IRT recommendations to protect the existing rights of brand owners and the IP Clearinghouse is a valuable proposal. The measures that apply to both the top and second levels both levels being essential and we highly encourage the creation of the Globally Protected Marks List. The standard for inclusion should be high and defined upon objectives criteria (number of registrations) instead of concepts that have a different meaning pursuant to national legislation. Nestlé welcome the URS and sees this additional tool as a modern and efficient adaptation to the Internet world and the unfair behavior of cybersquatters. The Internet has created more opportunities for infringers than in the "real world", because it is much easier to make money by simply creating a website and benefit from the reputation of a brand, while misusing the brand on look-alike products or through media like TV, newspaper or radio is linked to a greater financial investment. The likelihood of infringement of a brand on Internet is not comparable to the infringement made directly on the markets. It is time to adapt the protection and defense tool to the actual use of the Internet and its deviance. Nestlé supports the other measures developed by the IRT: the post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism, a Thick Whois Model and the String Confusion Review applying the 3 criteria of visual, aural and commercial (conceptual) similarity. Nestlé further asks for clarification on the following points: - The data transferred to the IP Clearinghouse: Requirements to update the data must be defined. The trademark owner should have the possibility to update the data once a year for all trademarks even if the trademarks were not submitted at the same time. - Globally Protected Marks List: In case of combined marks, the text elements constituting the GPM must not be disclaimed from the protection of the trademark (known as "disclaimer of some parts of the mark "). The date of issuance of the trademark registration is an important feature for the initial application of the top level domains. Nevertheless a solution must be found for the second level domains in respect of marks that will be become "globally protected" after the gTLD is activated. - URS Pre-registration: is this feasible if there are 200 new gTLDs? Why should the proposal "no pre-registration" cost more than the pre-registered user fee? The pre-registration is an extra service and we understand that it has its price, however if the brand owner decides not to pre-register and submits the data each time he wishes to complaint, he should not be penalized. - The fact that a domain will be "frozen" is an acceptable solution. It is often the case that the brand owner does not want to add the domain in its portfolio for its own use, but is currently doing it to avoid the domain name from being re-registered immediately after it is cancelled. On the other hand if the brand owner wanted to register the domain name but came in second position, how could he recover the domain before the validity of the domain has lapsed? Does he have to rely on UDRP? - The URS will be successful if the complaint system is not misued by registrants simply claiming interest and good faith without demonstrating these criteria. Nestlé suggests to make further amendments to the form complain, answer and decision. Respectfully submitted by Nestlé S.A. Caroline Perriard Brand Intellectual Property Counsel Nestec S.A. Avenue Nestlé 55, 1800 Vevey Switzerland Tel.: +41 21 924 38 25 Fax: +41 21 924 45 64 Email: Caroline.Perriard@xxxxxxxxxx P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.