Nestlé's Comments in Support of RPM in the new gTLDs

["Perriard,Caroline,VEVEY,FC-IP" <Caroline.Perriard@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.