Some additional observations

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's very educational reading the submissions of others, as they simply 
demonstrate the *opposite* of what they are attempting to argue.

In the comments of MARQUES/ECTA at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00060.html

they make the stunning admission that:

"In addition, the current evolution of trademark law is moving more towards 
national and international systems where rights‐owners have to look after their 
own rights (by means of watching, oppositions or legal action) rather than 
trademark offices refusing applications for registrations on relative grounds" 
(page 2 of the PDF)

This says two things:

(1) that the TM system is being abused, as TM offices are simply allowing a 
free for all in registrations, which are then "fixed" later through the court 
system; weak or non-existent "marks" are being allowed to be registered

(2) "rights-owners have to look after their own rights (by means of watching, 
oppositions, or legal action" -- read this statement carefully, it means the 
evolution of law is *NOT* that TMs give a presumptive right of exclusivity or 
right of first refusal, as markholders are arguing for in the case of domain 
names, via sunrise periods, etc. It's the exact *opposite* namely that there's 
a presumption of innocence on others, and it's up to the markholders to "watch" 
or "oppose" or use "legal action".

In other words, #2 says that the evolution of the law is to NOT have any 
sunrise periods, etc.

MARQUES and ECTA go on to cast away any remaining shred of credibility in one 
sentence, namely:

"Many trademark owners cannot afford to register in more than one jurisdiction 
and we believe it is essential that the TC should treat all registered marks 
equally, without exception." (page 2 of PDF)

This is of course absurd. There's a huge difference in the strength of marks, 
e.g. marks that are fanciful, vs. ones that are not. Or marks that are on the 
Supplemental Register (in the USA) vs. the Principal Register. Or, figurative 
marks vs. word/text marks. There is a live figurative mark that corresponds to 
the English word "GAMES" in the US at:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74225653

According to the arguments of ECTA/MARQUES and some of the other submissions, 
that extremely weak "mark" should be entitled to a right of first refusal over 
GAMES.TLD in sunrise periods, etc. It's these frivolous arguments by 
markholders that demonstrates the extent to which they are overreaching, trying 
to go beyond internationally recognized law. That figurative mark offers no 
protection against others using the term "games" in a regular or different text 
font or logo. In their words, that figurative mark should be treated "equally" 
to the strongest marks like "Verizon" or "Exxon" which are purely fanciful.

I trust that ICANN will ignore these attempts by markholders to go beyond 
international trademark laws. The rules must recognize that no one is entitled 
to worldwide exclusivity over a domain name just because they own a piece of 
paper, and that no one is entitled to a right of first refusal over a domain 
name.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/