ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Comments of The Coca-Cola Company to the April 2011 Discussion Draft of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook

  • To: "'6gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx'" <6gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comments of The Coca-Cola Company to the April 2011 Discussion Draft of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook
  • From: "McCarthy, Kathleen" <kmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:18:39 -0400

The Coca-Cola Company ("TCCC") submits the following comments to the gTLD 
Applicant Guidebook - April 2011 Discussion Draft.

        As expressed in its prior comments, TCCC believes that the present plan 
to launch hundreds of new gTLDs all at once is both flawed and unnecessary.  
There is inadequate evidence supporting the alleged demand for such a launch, 
and there are no effective measurements of the possible effect of such a launch 
on consumers, rights holders and the many other members of the Internet 
community.  Clearly, the Internet community would be better served by ICANN if 
the new gTLDs are rolled out in both a controlled and a measured manner, with 
first priority given to those gTLDs for which there is a demonstrated need -- 
such as IDNs in non-Latin scripts that will be used by billions of people, as 
opposed to yet additional alternatives to .com -- and with mechanisms in place 
to assess the possible benefits and adverse effects of the new gTLDs and the 
adequacy of the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs).

        TCCC recognizes that the RPMs have improved since the initial ICANN 
proposals and continue to improve with each draft of the Applicant Guidebook.  
Nevertheless, no one should be fooled into thinking that the RPMs currently in 
place adequately address the trademark abuse and fraud that already occur on a 
widespread scale with the limited number of gTLDs currently in place and that 
will undoubtedly occur on a much broader scale with the addition of hundreds of 
new gTLDs.

        TCCC therefore again requests further consideration of the following 

        *       The Uniform Rapid Suspension ("URS") procedure should be more 
robust.  The remedy should not be limited to a suspension of the domain; 
instead the domain should be turned over to the objector so that the brand 
owner is not faced with a similar problem once the suspension ends.  And if the 
point of the URS proceeding is to address blatant abuse such as a site selling 
counterfeits or engaging in fraudulent phishing schemes, then the domain should 
not be allowed to continue to resolve to the abusive website once the 
proceeding is initiated and passes the initial administrative review.  Instead, 
internet access should be promptly disabled.

        *       The Trademark Clearinghouse should be used to vet more than 
just identical trademark matches.  There is no reason to limit the match to 
identical hits when the technology exists to address broader matches that are 
still clear infringements such as the trademark used with the corresponding 
generic term.  At a minimum, there is no reason why trademark claims notices 
could not be provided for applications that seek to register domain names 
containing the letter string comprised of the registered mark along with other 

        *       The IRT proposal of a Globally Protected Marks List was 
summarily dismissed by ICANN without full consideration.  TCCC continues to 
believe that a Globally Protected Marks List would greatly assist the community 
in addressing some of the problems likely to be faced by brand owners when 
hundreds of new gTLDs are introduced.  Criteria for establishing fame already 
exist in many countries.  Procedures can be put in place to address 
determinations of eligibility for inclusion on the list and any special 
exceptions to the application of the marks on a list to a particular gTLD.

        TCCC again urges ICANN to more carefully study the various issues 
raised by this major change before implementing the program on a wide scale.

Submitted by Kathleen E. McCarthy, as counsel for
The Coca-Cola Company
One Coca-Cola Plaza
Atlanta GA 30313


King & Spalding Confidentiality Notice:

This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended 
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This 
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or 
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the 
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or 
disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message 
in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies 
of the message.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy