ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

MarkMonitor URS Comments Reposting

  • To: <urs-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: MarkMonitor URS Comments Reposting
  • From: Frederick Felman <ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:44:07 -0700

The ICANN comment system has not accepted our comments in PDF format and is
re-formatting the file names as .DOC.  We are reposting comments as text:

MarkMonitor welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Draft Uniform Rapid
Suspension Systems ("URS") as part of ICANN's expansion of the Generic
Top-Level Domain (gTLD) space. This is our fourth set of comments on the
subject of the URS. (URS in the IRT Draft
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-draft-report/pdfq4JezKKNYG.pdf, URS in the
IRT Final Report 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/pdfN6xQUIg3zZ.pdf, and URS in
the STI Proposal 
As part of a ³tapestry² of rights protection mechanisms URS could be a very
effective tool to protect brand rights holder interests in an Internet where
there are hundreds or thousands of new gTLDs. On its own, or combined with
other weak protection mechanisms like the trademark clearing house URS will
likely not provide adequate protection or a major tenant of a rights
protection program for most brand holders.
By itself the URS appears to provide some benefit for addressing clear-cut
trademark abuse. However, the only remedy provided is the suspension of the
domain for the balance of the registration period or for the ability to
register the domain for an additional year with ownership to remain under
the original Registrant. This may make URS a Sisyphean task for brand
holders as they are forced to file URS proceedings on more popular
infringement variants every two years or less.
In addition to these remedies, we ask that an option for the transfer of
domains be allowed in cases where determination is in favor of the
Complainant. Without this option well-trafficked domains suspended under the
URS will be registered again when they become available resulting in a
repetitive cycle of domain name watching and suspending.
Additionally, under this proposal registrants have the ability to respond to
default cases for a period of up to two years after a ruling in favor of the
Complainant. Therefore, continual tracking and management of these default
cases for a period of up to two years will be burdensome for rights holders
and conflicts with the URS's stated cost-effective and expedited objectives.
The Internet community would be better served if the period be shortened
from two years down to the shorter of 90 days or the expiration of the
MarkMonitor urges ICANN to reconsider the proposed remedies for the URS and
to allow for a transfer option and that the amount of time Registrants have
to respond to default judgments in favor of the complainant be decreased to
the shorter of 90 days or the expiration of the domain.

Respectfully Submitted,

Frederick Felman
Chief Marketing Officer

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy