Telepathy's Comments on the Final IRT Report

[Nat Cohen <ncohen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Telepathy's Comments on the Final IRT Report

I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the IRT report.

I write from the perspective of being the Respondent in over a dozen UDRP
proceedings over the past 10 years.  The defenses provided to legitimate
domain registrants by the current UDRP procedures are tenuous and easily
breached by unscrupulous complainants or panelists who substitute their
personal biases for the clear language of the UDRP.

The IRT proposes further weakening of the defenses available to legitimate
domain owners.  I fear the adoption of the IRT proposal will lead to
wide-scale abuse as provisions intended to address blatant trademark
infringing domains will certainly be applied in a cynical manner by
trademark owners in attempts to seize properly registered domains from their
rightful owners.

While cybersquatting has received most of the press recently, these cases
are easily resolved and the value of the domains in question in usually
quite small.

The problem of trademark owners making overreaching claims in an effort to
acquire valuable domains that they covet but are not entitled to, is a
serious problem that has not received nearly the attention.   Valuable
domains such as Mexico.com, NewZealand.com and DW.com have been subject to
abusive Complaints.

Telepathy has had to spend tens of thousands of dollars successfully
defending overreaching UDRP claims made by covetous trademark owners.
Telepathy is not reimbursed for any of these costs, nor the time and effort
involved, in defending its rights to its properly registered domains.

The UDRP is already stacked in favor of the Complainant.  The Complainant at
most risks the costs of the Complaint, and due to the vagaries of the UDRP
process might get lucky and be awarded a valuable domain to which it is not
legally entitled.  The Respondent in many cases finds its very valuable
generic domains at risk of loss due to unsupported claims by the Complainant
or a wayward link provided by a third-party partner.

While it is easy to generate outrage over blatant trademark infringement,
the more insidious problem of trademark overreach is harder to describe and
often occurs out of view.

The UDRP is called upon to sort out the competing claims in many high stakes
battles where the disputed domain name may have an intrinsic  value in the
tens of thousands of dollars.  These are domain names based on words or
phrases in common everyday use, where a company has trademarked that word or
phrase for a particular narrow commercial use.  The UDRP panelists are
called upon to do a fact-intensive analysis to determine whether the domain
owner registered and used the domain because of the intrinsic value of the
domain or in order to profit from the trademark owner's goodwill in the
mark.  The URS proposed by the IRT is ill-suited to this fact-intensive
analysis required to sort out the competing claims in disputes over generic
words or phrases.

Since nearly every word or phrase with a positive meaning has been
trademarked for one use or another, as has every two letter combination and
nearly every three-letter combination, and since these domains are often the
most valuable, the potential for abuse by trademark owners attempting to
seize these domains is quite high.

The evidence of this abuse is clear.  UDRP panelists appear to be extremely
reluctant to return a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, even under
circumstances which to many observers such a finding is clearly deserved.
Even so, there have been dozens of findings of attempted Reverse Domain Name
Hijacking.    A partial list of such cases is below.

Under the URS, with its weakened protections for domain name owners, we can
expect an increase in such abusive behavior.

In short, while the URS may address one type of case handled by the UDRP  -
blatant trademark infringement - it is inadequate to handle domain names
whose value comes from their inherent social meaning.  In attempting to
solve one problem, the IRT risks creating a bigger problem elsewhere.

I would strongly urge ICANN to pursue a balanced approach and preserve
adequate defenses so that legitimate domain owners have the procedural
safeguards to protect their domains from abusive complaints from
overreaching trademark owners.

Regards,

Nat Cohen
President
Telepathy, Inc.



Sample Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Decisions

kiwi.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0848.html

moneyplanet.com/travelplanet.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0217.html

versacapital.com
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1250988.htm

sfm.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0535.html

sfm.com  (again!!)
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1183176.htm

fcc.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0770.html

NewZealand.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
(Complainant is Her Majesty, the Queen!)

enki.com
http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1142379.htm

pizzashoppe.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1353.html

mess.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0964.html

dvla.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0913.html

windsor.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0839.html

liquidnutrition.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1598.html

dw.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1202.html

collectivemedia.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0641.html

proto.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0905.html

carsales.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0047.html

pokerhost.net
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1518.html

goldline.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1151.html

mexico.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0242.html

smartdesign.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0993.html


decal.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0585.html

mylife.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1313.html

itravelinsured.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/545210.htm

zounds.com
http://domain.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/817093.htm

aspengrove.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0798.html

maggi.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0916.html

armani.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0537.html

goodtidings.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/105749.htm

intelilink.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/100124.htm

k2r.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0622.html

qtrade.com
http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0169.htm

tradesite.com
http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0473.htm

ode.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0074.html

mountainviewcountryclub.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/416462.htm

onu.com
http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0672.htm

paparazzo.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0189.html

picoliter.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/122205.htm

prom.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1154.html

safaricasino.com
http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0288.htm

supremo.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1357.html

thefetishfactory.com
http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/99610.htm

torres.com
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1200.html


411.biz
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00249.html

shoes.biz
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00245.html