ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[urs-15feb10]


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

NCUC Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension System & Trademark Clearinghouse Proposals

  • To: urs-15feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: NCUC Comments on Uniform Rapid Suspension System & Trademark Clearinghouse Proposals
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:25:50 -0700

<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; 
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:18.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b><span 
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-variant: normal; 
font-weight: normal; "></span></b></span></p></body></html>

Attachment: NCUC-STI_Comments_TMC_URS_04012010.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; 
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:18.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b><span 
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-variant: normal; 
font-weight: normal; "></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b><span 
class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; font-variant: normal; 
font-weight: normal; "></span>NCUC Comments</b></span><span 
style="font-size:18.0pt;font-variant:small-caps; 
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b>on</b></span><span 
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-variant:small-caps;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b> 
the<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:15.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b>Uniform Rapid 
Suspension System</b></span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-variant: 
small-caps;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b>and</b></span><span 
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-variant:small-caps;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p
 class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:15.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b>Trademark 
Clearinghouse Proposals</b></span><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-variant: 
small-caps;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-variant:small-caps; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b>as 
revised by</b></span><span style="font-size: 
14.0pt;font-variant:small-caps"><b> <span lang="EN-GB">ICANN 
Staff</span></b></span><span 
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-variant:small-caps;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p
 class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><span 
style="font-size:5.0pt;font-variant:small-caps; 
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <div 
style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 
0in"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" 
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; 
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; 
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span 
style="font-variant:small-caps; mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b>1 April 
2010<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:6.0pt; 
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">The Non-Commercial Users 
Constituency (NCUC) welcomes the opportunity to submit our comments to the 
revised documents, produced by the ICANN Staff, relating to the creation of a 
Trademark Clearinghouse and a Uniform Rapid Suspension System, which will be 
included in version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. We also welcome the 12 
March 2010 ICANN Board Resolutions supporting the substantive content of the 
Clearinghouse and of the Uniform Rapid Suspension System.</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Generally 
speaking, both staff-prepared documents reflect the main deliberations and 
conclusions of the GNSO’s Special Trademark Issues Team (STI). At the same 
time, however, there are specific issues in which the staff-revised proposals 
depart substantially from the GNSO-STI’s recommendations</span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"> and some mistakes appear to be simple 
typographical errors</span><span lang="EN-GB">. Although we appreciate that 
some of these comments attempt to consolidate the various opinions of the 
</span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">community</span><span 
lang="EN-GB"> during the public comment period, some of these comments reflect 
</span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">staff </span><span 
lang="EN-GB">additions </span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">to the 
policy </span><span lang="EN-GB">that NCUC believes are arbitrary, unjustified 
and – in some cases – illegitimate.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:14.0pt"><b>The Uniform Rapid Suspension System 
(URS)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">The original scope of the URS, 
reflected both in the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) report as well 
as in the recommendations produced by the GNSO Special Trademark Issues (STI) 
group, was to deal with the ’clear-cut’ and undisputable cases of 
cybersquatting. It was also designed with the idea that URS Examiners would 
proceed to a substantive review of any case before making their determinations. 
At no point, was it considered that a domain name dispute that reached the URS 
level would automatically indicate cybersquatting. The revised Staff report, 
however, seems to suggest exactly this. In particular, section 2 of the URS 
document states: “<b>Given the nature of expected disputes in this venue, it is 
thought, more often than not, that no response to complaints will be 
submitted…</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">”. We strongly urge the ICANN Staff to 
<b>remove</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> this sentence as it operates under a 
presumption of guilt on behalf of the Respondent. This was not part of the 
GNSO-STI recommendation, which was adamant about the Examiner conducting a 
substantive review of the dispute, even if the domain name holder failed to 
respond. We believe that it is unfair and against the principles of due process 
as it is patently prejudiced in favor of trademark complainants. A fair and 
neutral URS procedure should not operate under the presumption that ‘more often 
than not’ there will be no response to the complaint.</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Moreover, 
section 4.3 of the revised Staff report states: “… as well as the effects if 
the registrant fails to respond and defend <b>again</b></span><span 
lang="EN-GB"> the Complaint”. This is a mistake – it should instead read: “… as 
well as the effects if the registrant fails to respond and defend 
<b>against</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> the Complainant”.</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Furthermore and 
while we welcome the affordability of the URS to provide, upon request, some 
extra time to the Registrant if there is good faith for doing so, we do not 
accept that this time should be contingent on the fact that it “<b>does not 
harm the Complainant</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">”. This addition indirectly 
negates the affordability of ‘buying’ some extra time on the mere assertion of 
perceived harm of the complainant. From the perspective of trademark owners and 
considering that they are the ones to initiate the dispute, any extra time will 
harm them and they will always claim “harm” when more time is needed. 
Therefore, making the allowance of this extra time dependant on whether this 
causes harm to the Complainant, makes this provision redundant. At the same 
time, trademark owners can allege harm without submitting any proof or evidence 
for this harm and therefore disallow Registrants of the opportunity for 
additional time. <b>The very fact that the registrant has responded 
demonstrates good faith</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">. We strongly urge the 
ICANN staff to <b>remove</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> this added provision and 
we believe that the limitation of allowing this extra time based on good faith 
is sufficient and in line with the consensus of the GNSO.</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">More 
importantly, we would also like to draw attention to paragraph 6 “Default” of 
the new staff proposals. Section 6.1 states: “If at the expiration of the 
20-day answer period (or extension period of granted), the Registrant does not 
submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to default. <b>If the answer is 
determined not to be in compliance with the filing requirements, Default is 
also appropriate</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">”. It is the second sentence of 
this section that is highly problematic and illegitimate by expanding the 
meaning of the term “default” to include minor filing mistakes. Exactly the 
same view was reflected by the ICANN Staff in its report, following the IRT’s 
recommendation (<a 
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf";>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-urs-04oct09-en.pdf</a>)
 and it was an interpretation the GNSO-STI consciously rejected. Under legal 
theory and practice default means one thing and one thing only: <b>failure to 
respond in a timely manner</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">. It does not extend to 
filling mistakes, which are bound to occur in many innocent instances. 
</span><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: 
yes">&nbsp;</span>It is simply unfair to bump the dispute to default status 
simply for filing errors and omissions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">There are many 
reasons why this provision is illegitimate and should be removed from what will 
eventually be part of version 4 of the Applicants’ Guidebook. First of all, it 
only applies to the Registrant/domain name holder. This is unfair – both 
procedurally and substantively – as it does not provide room for human error. 
Secondly, if this document is supposed to reflect the recommendations made by 
the GNSO-STI as well as the comments of the public comment period, then this 
provision has been arbitrarily added by the ICANN staff. As said before, the 
GNSO-STI wilfully dismissed this expansive interpretation of default, whilst 
there is not one single comment made during the public comment period, which 
suggested that default should also be interpreted in such a broad manner. 
Moreover, by interpreting default so expansively, it is to be anticipated that 
many registrants will be placed in a disadvantageous position, since, in many 
cases, Registrants do not have at their disposal legal teams and represent 
themselves. Registrants are fighting against a ‘ticking clock’ with short 
deadlines and in many cases English is not their first language – therefore, 
mistakes are and will be inevitable. We strongly urge the <b>removal 
of</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> the second sentence of section 6.1 – namely 
<u>“If the answer is determined not to be in compliance with the filing 
requirements, Default is also appropriate</u>”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">NCUC also believes that the 
opening sentence of section 5.6 is too passive and suggests that the sentence 
“Such claims, if found by the Examiner to be proved based on its evaluation of 
all evidence, shall result in a finding in favor of the Registrant” that sits 
at the end of section 5.6 should be placed in the beginning and follow the 
opening sentence. The new, amended version should read: “<b>The Response can 
contain any facts refuting the claim of bad faith registration by setting out 
any of the following circumstances, which, if found by the Examiner to be 
proved based on its evaluation of all evidence, shall result in a finding in 
favor of the Registrant:</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">”</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Furthermore, 
NCUC <u>strongly</u> disagrees with the staff’s replacement of the GNSO’s 
negotiated language of “Safe Harbor” provisions with the word ‘Defenses’ and is 
not convinced that this is a product of “further independent legal analysis”. 
The GNSO-STI was comprised – amongst others – by legal experts in the area of 
trademarks and domain names and the GNSO-STI’s use of the “Safe Harbor” 
language was a product of extensive legal consideration and negotiation; this 
language also received GNSO-STI’s unanimous consensus. The word “Defenses” – is 
much weaker and especially in the context that it is used – does not create a 
binding legal obligation for the URS Examiner to accept that the Respondent has 
the right to demonstrate that the domain name registration is legitimate and in 
good faith. The GNSO-STI made use of the Nominet language in purpose and with 
the aim to identify the circumstances where the domain name holder is the <i>de 
jure </i></span><span lang="EN-GB">owner of the domain name. We, therefore, 
recommend that these staff-revised proposals <b>should either go back to the 
use of the phrase “Safe Harbor” or, alternatively, should use the Nominet 
language:</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> “<b>How a Respondent may demonstrate in 
its response that the Domain Name is not an Abusive Registration and is making 
a legitimate use of the domain name</b></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">It is also necessary to clarify in the next DAG that the scope of 
the URS Safe Harbors that operate in tribute to or in criticism of a person or 
a business will not be limited to </span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">only those </span><span lang="EN-GB">situations 
where there has been a previous legal determination of fair use before the 
criticism may be allowed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; 
</span>Therefore, we recommend a slight amendment to clarify the AGB model 
<b>“(d)omain Name sites operated solely in tribute to or in criticism of a 
person or business that is found by the panel or other adjudicator to be fair 
use</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">There is also a mistake in the 
wording of section 5.8 – “other considerations of bad faith for the Examiner”. 
This should read “Other consideration of good faith for the Examiner” as it 
constitutes a continuation of section 5.7. Actually, there is no reason for the 
separation of the “Safe Harbor” provisions in two sections. We, therefore, 
suggest that 5.8 (a) and (b) be replaced by 5.7 (e) and (f).</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">In the context 
of “Abusive Complaints”, the revised ICANN staff report, in section 11, fails 
to distinguish between abuses on behalf of trademark owners and on behalf of 
URS examiners. At the same time, sections 11.1 and 11.2 should be merged into 
one section as they deal with the same subject matter. In particular, section 
11.2 contains a lot of language mistakes and fails to make sense. The 
GNSO-STI’s section 9 entitled “Abuse of Process” was very clear in the 
distinction between the types of abuses and received unanimous consensus by the 
GNSO. In particular it stated:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB"><u>9. Abuse of 
Process<o:p></o:p></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">9.1 “Abuse by trademark holders: 
The URS shall incorporate penalties for abuse of the process by trademark 
holders. In the event of two (2) abusive complaints, or one (1) finding of a 
“deliberate material falsehood,” the party should be barred for one (1) years 
from the URS. Two (2) finding of “deliberate material falsehood” should 
permanently bar the party from the URS. Multiple complaints must be against the 
same entity and should not include affiliates. Staff shall implement guidelines 
for what constitutes abuse, consistent with previous cases of reverse domain 
name hijacking, TM abuse and general principles of fairness. The examiner of 
the URS case should indicate in the decision whether an abusive complaint or a 
deliberate material falsehood has occurred, and the Service Providers should 
report any of such findings to ICANN”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">9.2 “Abuse by Examiners: The URS 
shall incorporate penalties for abuse of the process by examiners. Three (3) or 
more findings of abuse of process or discretion against an examiner shall cause 
the examiner to lose its certification to serve as a panellist. Staff to 
implement guidelines for what constitutes abuse and who makes the decision. 
ICANN to collect data related to such findings of abuse by 
examiners.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB"><b><i>NCUC urges ICANN to go back to the original GNSO-STI 
recommendation on “Abuse of Process” and use its negotiated and clear 
language.</i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><b><i> </i></b></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US">We also<b><i> </i></b></span><span 
style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US">urge the staff to develop, in consultation with 
the community, clearer guidelines as to what is meant by "deliberate material 
falsehood" in this context.<b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Furthermore, it 
appears that the evaluation of appeal instructions as set by the GNSO-STI team 
is missing from the staff-revised texts. <b><i>We, therefore, suggest that the 
following, which has received unanimous consensus by the GNSO-STI, goes back to 
the document that will appear in version 4 of the Applicants’ 
Guidebook:</i></b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">8.4. “Evaluation of Appeal: The 
URS should not use an ombudsman for appeals of URS decisions. URS appeals shall 
be conducted by either: (i) a three (3) person panel selected from a 
preselected pool of panellists, or (ii) three (3) panellists, with one 
appointed by each of the parties and third panellist selected by the other two 
panellists or by the service provider. In the interest of time and efficiency, 
both options shall be provided to the Appellant by the URS Service 
Providers”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">Last but not least, the revised ICANN Staff Paper has omitted the 
important and unanimous decision of the GNSO-STI to subject the URS to a 
mandatory review. There has not been any suggestion during the public comment 
period to the contrary. Needless to say that there is no justification for this 
omission and in the name of securing the future, success and fairness of the 
URS process, section 10 of the GNSO-STI recommendation should be included in 
this revised version. Specifically and according to the GNSO-STI’s unanimous 
recommendation “<b>ICANN will conduct a review of the URS one year after the 
first date of operation. There is no requirement that the URS should 
automatically expire of terminate after any set period of time. ICANN will 
publish examination statistics for use in the review of the URS</b></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:14.0pt"><b>Trademark Clearinghouse 
(TMC)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">NCUC considers that the revised 
proposal for the creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC) generally 
represents the ideas and vision of the GNSO Special Trademark Issues (STI) 
report. However, we feel that there are some specific issues that ICANN should 
clarify and address.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">We would like to point to page 2 
of the revised report, which states: <b>“As set forth more fully below, there 
had been some suggestions that the role of the Clearinghouse be expanded beyond 
trademark rights and that the data which can be submitted be expanded beyond 
trademarks and service marks.</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> <b>As described 
below, there is no prohibition against that Trademark Clearinghouse Service 
Provider providing ancillary services, if any, as long as those services and 
any data used for those services are kept separate from the Clearinghouse 
database</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">”. This part creates various problems and 
opens a Pandora’s Box in relation to the services provided by the TMC. In 
relation to ancillary services, the vision of the GNSO-STI was to allow TMC 
Provider(s) to provide ancillary services, <b>but only those directly related 
to trademark issues; not ancillary services pertaining to every single 
intellectual property right</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">. The GNSO-STI 
unanimously approved ‘Trademark Clearinghouse’ as an official name for the 
Clearinghouse, replacing this way the IRT’s ‘IP Clearinghouse’ wording. This 
change in the name was not merely one of semantics; it reflected the explicit 
wish of the GNSO-STI to limit and restrict the role, scope and services of the 
Clearinghouse to only trademark-related issues specifically. The 
above-mentioned wording of the revised TMC proposal seems to be affording the 
TMC Provider(s) the discretion to include any type of ancillary services – 
trademark-related or not. We, therefore, urge the ICANN staff to rephrase this 
part of the report, adhering to the limited role of the Trademark 
Clearinghouse, and <b>replace the term “ancillary services” with “<u>ancillary 
trademark services</u>” in order to reflect the GNSO-STI’s 
vision</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">. (Section 6.1 language of GNSO-STI 
report)<span style="background: 
yellow;mso-highlight:yellow"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">NCUC would also like to comment 
on the issue that appears to have generated a great debate – namely, the 
inclusion and mandatory pre-launch use of those marks from jurisdictions that 
they do not conduct substantive review. NCUC does appreciate the reasons for 
the recommendations of the revised ICANN staff proposals to have these marks 
included in the Clearinghouse and make them part of the Mandatory Pre-Launch 
use of the Trademark Clearinghouse. However, we would also like to draw the 
attention of ICANN, GAC and the wider Internet community to the possibility of 
this provision creating ‘<b>trademark havens’</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">, 
where deceptive and frivolous mark owners may turn to register their marks 
‘easier’ and avoid being subjected to rigorous and intense trademark tests 
applied by the majority of jurisdictions around the world. This possibility 
will cause significant problems to existing trademark owners, but more 
importantly, to non-commercial Registrants and individual users. We, therefore, 
request ICANN to ensure that the Trademark Clearinghouse is subjected to 
periodic reviews in order to ensure that the trademarks derived from these 
‘<b>trademark havens’</b></span><span lang="EN-GB"> constitute legitimate use 
of a trademark right including undergoing substantive review.</span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Moreover, 
section 5 of the revised proposal on the Trademark Clearinghouse, entitled 
‘Data Authentication Guidelines’, is incomplete. Another necessary and 
indispensable criterion for inclusion in the Clearinghouse should be added: the 
data needs to be also authenticated in relation to the classification of the 
trademark under a specific class of goods and/or services – an important 
restriction on trademark rights. Therefore, section 5 should be amended to also 
include a <b>list cataloguing the Classes of Goods and/or Services in line with 
the International Classification Scheme for Goods and/or Services as well as a 
description of these goods and services.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; 
</span>Failing to include the specific class information for a trademark in the 
TMC will inevitably lead to confusion, conflation and an expansion in trademark 
rights.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">NCUC also believes that the 
staff-revised Trademark Clearinghouse makes an unnecessary and illegitimate 
distinction between valid trademark registrations. The new proposal prohibits 
trademarks with a gTLD extension to be listed in the Clearinghouse’s database. 
More specifically and according to the proposal ‘Registrations that include top 
level extensions such as ‘.com’ as part of the trademark or service mark will 
not be permitted in the Clearinghouse regardless of whether a registration has 
issued (i.e., if a trademark existed for example.com, example.com would not be 
permitted in the Clearinghouse). <b>This is arbitrary and 
unfair</b></span><span lang="EN-GB">. National Patent and Trademark Offices 
around the world (including that of the United States and the United Kingdom) 
have made room and have produced guidelines that allow for the registration of 
names with a gTLD extension as long as they meet the traditional 
trademarkability requirements. ICANN, and the wider community, has to bear in 
mind that there are small and medium-sized businesses – representing both 
commercial and not-commercial interests – that operate solely on the Internet. 
These businesses have acquired valid trademark rights and have gone through the 
solid and traditional trademark assignment test. <b>There is no reason or 
justification for their exclusion from the database</b></span><span 
lang="EN-GB">.<a style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" 
title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span 
style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</span></span></a></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span 
lang="EN-GB">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" 
style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" 
style="font-size:14.0pt"><b>Concluding Comments<o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p 
class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB">Although NCUC 
believes that overall the ICANN staff-revised proposals adhere generally to the 
recommendations and vision of the GNSO-STI team, at the same time we feel that 
some additions have been made in the revised proposals, which jeopardize the 
bottom-up processes of ICANN, the work of the GNSO-STI and endanger the rights 
and legitimate interests of registrants and non-commercial users. Given the 
lack of justification for their insertion and the way they deflect the 
compromises achieved by the GNSO-STI, we urge their removal from the text 
included in version 4 of the Applicants’ Guidebook.<span style="mso-spacerun: 
yes">&nbsp; </span>NCUC, and specifically its GNSO-STI members, stand ready and 
willing to consult with ICANN and the rest of the community to further refine 
the GNSO’s new gTLD policy in a manner that reflects the consensus of the GNSO 
and promotes the global public interest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; 
</span>Thank you.</span></p> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><br 
clear="all"> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">  <div 
style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"> <div class="MsoFootnoteText"><a 
style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span 
class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-GB"><span 
style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</span></span></span></a><span 
lang="EN-GB"> This is not the same case as with common law trademarks. Unlike 
common law marks, trademarks with a gTLD extension have undergone a rigorous 
and extensive evaluation test.</span></div> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment--> 
<br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><div><br 
class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br 
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br 
class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, 
Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA&nbsp; 
94117&nbsp; USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 &nbsp; &nbsp;f: 
+1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a 
href="http://www.ipjustice.org";>http://www.ipjustice.org</a>&nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp;e:&nbsp;<a 
href="mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a></div><br 
class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> 
</div><br></body></html>


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy