Comments of NCUC’s STI Members

To the ICANN Board, Staff and the wider Internet Community:

We welcome the opportunity to submit our comments to the recent work of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team in relation to the overarching issues pertaining the relationship between trademarks and domain names. Like the rest of the stakeholders, we would like to commend the work and collaboration of the STI in submitting its proposals in such a tight timeframe and working under the realisation that the launch of the new gTLDs would be contingent on its recommendations.

In our view, the work of the STI should be evaluated under three pivotal standpoints: substantive, procedural and the effect it has upon the existing legal structures. Before proceeding in analyzing in more detail these three issues, we would like to bring to the attention of both ICANN and the wider Internet community that the recommendations produced by the STI constitute a compromise of all stakeholders involved – the idea of the recommendations were not to please any single constituency or stakeholder group, but instead to produce proposals that would work to the benefit all the constituencies, all the stakeholder groups, and indeed all users of the Internet --- and provide a fair balance for all parties, while serving balance and justice.

 Procedural

The structure of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team should not be taken lightly. The STI was comprised by representatives of all ICANN’s recognized constituencies (Non-Commercial, Business, Intellectual Property, Registries, Registrars, At-Large and ISPs), adhering this way to ICANN’s mandate for inclusion and representation. The STI has acquired its legitimacy because of this very composition, an issue that was not addressed in the structure of the previous Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) and one, which has cost much of the IRT’s legitimacy. In this respect, we would like to commend ICANN for promoting a multi- stakeholder approach in the STI and for aligning itself with other multi-stakeholder models in other Internet governance arrangements.

What needs to be noted is that through the STI, ICANN demonstrated its willingness to create an inclusive and representative body and paid attention to the expressed concerns of the Internet community over the composition of the IRT. We would, therefore, like to congratulate ICANN for insisting in a multistakeholder model, the recommendations of which represent the views of a divergent set of actors, promoting different needs and concerns.

 Substantive

While we never wanted these pre- and post-launch mechanisms in the first place, we do fully support the recommendations made by the STI in relation to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TC) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). We note that no new issues were raised in the comments. All of the issues were debated for days, hours and weeks by the STI – and we support the balance on both mechanisms as ones carefully crafted by the STI and fair to all registration authorities, registrants and the trademark owners who seek them.

We would like to briefly respond to some of the issues raised during the STI public comments period.

 Trademark Clearinghouse

One thing has to be clear: the creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) creates a broad new pre-launch set of protections for Trademark Owners which is global in scope, far beyond the territorial limitations of any (and all) federally- and regionally- registered trademarks, and a huge new, innovative and broad policing and protection mechanism for existing trademark

owners as they set out to protect their trademarks in existing gTLDs.

We note that the Clearinghouse also provides efficiency for Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrars as the process of creating Clearinghouses for registered trademarks now shifts from each new gTLD registry and each individual prelaunch to One Company, One Database and One Filing, all overseen by ICANN. As NCUC and NCSG, we believe we gave our fellow ICANN community members exactly what they were looking for --- and absolutely as much as we could within the bounds of “Fair Use” and “Freedom of Expression” protections of words and noncommercial use – principles enshrined in the trademark laws of all communities and UN members.

Thus, we respond briefly to two issues debated very actively and extensively in the STI and raised again in the minority reports and comments: why only federally registered marks and why the specific formula of identical match?

A. The inclusion of only federally registered marks was a very conscious and purposeful one

.

We believe that the decision not to include common law marks in the final structure of the Clearinghouse was wise. Common law marks are particular in that they are recognized by a handful of jurisdictions across the world and, to this end, we foresaw that inclusion would create more problems and produce more burden (legal and administrative). At the same time, common law marks

constitute particular marks, since almost every word that exists in the everyday language can be claimed as a common law mark. To this end, previous registration practices endorsed by Registries have demonstrated that no uniform rule exists concerning common law marks, because of their very particular nature.

For these reasons, the STI deliberated and decided that it would be a better practice to provide Registries and Registrars with the discretion to decide whether they would include common law marks in their pre-registration and Sunrise processes. And the STI’s thinking did not stop there: acknowledging that some common law marks have to receive the recognition that has been given to

them by courts of adjudication, the STI has uniformly decided to include court-validated common law marks within the TC.

B. The inclusion of “identical match” technique as adopted by the STI comes from the IRT Report and incorporates far more than a mere traditional identical match.

Given the uniqueness of domain names, the STI went beyond the definition of identical match seeking to accommodate the situations where textual elements of the mark are replaced by special characters or other symbols. We believe that the STI was very reasonable in its approach, since under traditional principles of trademark law, identical match means the exact visual and lexical depiction of the mark and is not even as broad is it is defined in the STI report.

 Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)

We never believed that the creation of the URS was justifiable enough – but we went along when we realized that there might be a way to provide “expedited process” “at a very low-cost rate” of “clear-cut” and “slam-dunk” “cases of abuse.” Our goals were to make the URS process: fair, with enough notice, balanced for all, with a fast decision for the applicants (trademark owners) and subject absolutely only to the type of clear-cut cases of abuse that did not require the more lengthy evaluation of court or the UDRP.

The STI, after inordinate time and attention by some of the world leaders in this topic, truly made great strides towards doing so. The balance and fairness of the URS, as presented by the STI, is threatened by a string of requests from one party (namely those who envision themselves as the Complainants, the filers).

One of the main issues addressed during the pubic comments period related to the possibility of the URS to offer an automatic transfer of the domain name to the winning complaining party. This has also been an issue that was extensively discussed within the STI and we decided against it. The STI’s overwhelming majority position to not allow transfer of the domain name after a successful URS proceeding is correct and is in conformity with basic principles of justice and due process.

We need to bear in mind that the URS is not a stand-alone system of adjudication, but one that complements the already existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP, which was conceived more than 10 years ago, was structured under the premise to provide a limited range of remedies to trademark owners, namely the transfer or cancellation of the domain name. On the contrary, the URS was conceived as a mechanism, utilised by URS examiners, to evaluate domain name disputes under the more restricted premise of domain name ‘locking’. This was intentional. When the URS was proposed by the IRT as an additional protection mechanism for trademarks in the online world, the idea was that trademark owners would have at their disposal a two-step process – utilization of the URS for the ‘locking’ of the domain name and initiation of the UDRP to achieve its transfer or cancellation. Allowing, thus, an automatic transfer of the domain name after a successful URS process not only opposes the original idea behind the URS but it also displaces the already established process of the UDRP.

Moreover and given that the URS was not meant to allow the automatic transfer of the domain name – and this careful distinction between the URS and UDRP was not crafted by us, but by the IRT. They were correct: an expedited, “slamdunk” process should be very different from the UDRP. Registrars, registries, NCUC/NCSG and IPC agree. This issue was critical to our agreement with the

innovative URS concept.

We note that changing this procedural foundation – entertaining a URS transfer —will contradict the principles of justice and due process. The URS is structured upon the basis that each domain name dispute will be examined on the merits of ‘locking’ and not those of a transfer. In essence, what this means is that we cannot create a system, which promotes the incompatibility between process and remedy – it is contrary to principles of procedural justice to ask URS examiners to deliberate and issue decisions with one remedy in mind and then proceed to enforce a totally different one.

Thus, allowing automatic domain name transfer creates an extra-judicial step in the adjudication process, which is not authorised through the legitimization process of the URS examination.

It is for these issues of legitimacy and procedural justice that an automatic transfer of the domain name cannot take place within the URS.

 The effect of ICANN policies on trademark law

It is perhaps the first time that the balanced proposals of the STI team were in conformity with the basic principles of trademark law. This is an important development considering that all policies relating to trademark protection online should comply with the longstanding principles of trademark laws and regimes. The philosophy of trademark law is consistent with the idea of striking a balance between mark protection and fair use; it is consistent with the notion that essentially what is protected is the goodwill of a product and/or service; it is, finally, consistent with the idea that consumers are not confused, giving them autonomy, however, to determine the parameters of this confusion in line with basic principles of competition law.

The STI took all these issues into consideration when drafting its recommendations. We were all aware of the limitations of trademark law in the Domain Name System (DNS) as we were also aware of the fact that cybersquatters constitute a threat for online trademarks. We worked hard and struck a balance between the legitimate rights of trademark owners and legitimate rights of domain name registrants.

We therefore urge the ICANN staff to stay within the careful compromise crafted by the STI. It makes sense!

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis University of Strathclyde,URS Drafter and author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation”

Kathryn Kleiman, Esq.NCUC Co-Founder, US Trademark Attorney, UDRP Drafter & URS Drafter

Robin D. Gross, Esq. Chair of NCUC, IP Justice Executive Director, and URS Drafter

Wendy Seltzer Fellow with the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado and with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

To the rescue of the trademark community: Are trademark owners panicking in light of the STI recommendation?

I have been thinking for quite some time now to write something on the process and the final report, produced by the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team. I was a member of that team, representing the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and - trust me when I tell to all you individual users – I really did my best to ensure that the end result would be far better than the previous IRT recommendation, the ICANN staff proposal – even the UDRP experience.

What we all need to understand from this exercise is that the STI recommendation was one of compromise. The STI was conscious that without a consensus policy document, we would go back to the Staff recommendations or even worse to the IRT. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t even allow ICANN to propose the creation of a policy document for the protection of the trademark community. In reality, we don’t need either policy recommendations. We avoid the pink elephant in the room, which is a UDRP amendment. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world and, therefore, it was a question – do we let the trademark community take again the lead on this or do we engage in discussions and seek to balance (to the most feasible extent and given the political climate within ICANN) the new trademark law policy proposals?

I’ve just finished reading the comments posted on the ICANN website on the STI recommendation. This time around, there seemed to be a change of scene, as trademarks owners flooded the ICANN email servers, asking for more. Microsoft, the CocaCola company, Red Bull and Time Warner are amongst the few big corporations that submitted comments asking additions that the STI debated and rejected. Strong phrases, like the trademark community is ready to “roll up its sleeves to grapple this task” (Time Warner) are only indicative of the panic they face as we move towards proposals that seek to deliver justice and refrain from the current trademark-dominated culture. Where did trademark owners really get the idea from that it is all about protecting them – what about protecting legitimate domain name registrants from obvious and overt Trademark Lawyer abuse and trademark intimidation?

But, I have to admit – reading the comments of trademark owners, mashing up the same arguments was fun. Much of their language had Harry Potter reference – “He Whose Full Name Shall Not Be Spoken”. They hardly referred to terms like legitimate registrants or lawful domain name holders, as if they don’t exist or have any rights. So, let’s make another thing clear. There are legitimate owners out there; there are free speech advocates out there and they deserve appropriate levels of protection. So, dear trademark owners, legitimate registrants are not just “other participants” in the process – they are vital players just like you and they have a name: LEGITIMATE REGISTRANTS.

In line with the STI recommendations, the comments focused on two streams.

For the Trademark Clearinghouse, the trademark community is asking for inclusion of common law rights and any other form of protection you can possibly think of. But, the TC is not meant to be a rights’ protection mechanism – it is supposed to be an efficiency mechanism. Who is ICANN to replace the operation and functions of national offices? Who are the trademark owners to impose common law rights on every single jurisdiction around the world, which does not necessarily understand them? Why shouldn’t trademark owners bear the cost of it – it is a TRADEMARK Clearinghouse – who else should pay for it?

For the URS, the message sent by the trademark community was the following: let’s forget all about justice. Let’s transfer the domain name, even if we don’t design a system to do that and we already have one in place and let’s scrap off the appeals process, per WIPO’s recommendation, as it impedes the speed of the mechanism. Oh, and let’s make another thing clear: the UDRP is not expensive. It was meant to be a cheap mechanism and its filling fee is still cheap. Now, if trademark law firms charge their clients thousands of dollars for a simple complaint, that is not the system’s concern. Just change your trademark law firm, as a complaint should not cost you thousands and thousands of dollars.

I am not trying to advocate that the STI is perfect. However, it is a good document and one that, for the first time, has included the views of the Non-commercial users.

But, if you ask me: what we needed and we still nee is a UDRP amendment – there is really so much we can learn from the UDRP and so much we can fix. Of course, that would mean the trademark community getting exposed to the flaws of the UDRP and the fact that over the past ten years that have received expansive levels of protection.

The more I think about it, the more I realize on thing: we shouldn’t even be talking about trademark law here. We should rather re-name it to “Brand law”, because it is all about these big brands that consider the DNS as their own space.

With this in mind, I was happy to see some of the comments suggesting the unreasonableness of the trademark community and the whole scope of their demands. I was happy to read small businesses expressing their concerns and fears of the trademark domination in the DNS. These are the ones that also deserve our attention.

I guess the only message, if any, I would like to send with this post is: don’t believe that trademarks owners will lose with these new proposals. Whoever reads the comments, please understand that the trademark community is not only well-protected – it is actually over-protected and they should not be asking for higher levels of protection.

The Czech Arbitration Court is suggesting what in essence is a UDRP amendment

Following the really bad precedent set by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the proposal for a fast-track UDRP process, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has proposed changes that in essence amend the substantive and procedural rules of the UDRP. The Non-Commercial Users Constituency has submitted the following comments:

December 11, 2009

Dear ICANN Staff,

The undersigned members of the NCSG STI Drafting Team submit that the request from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) cannot be granted at this time for the strongest of procedural and substantive reasons.

1. The ICANN public notice for comments has misled the ICANN community and the public. This is not a mere change to supplemental rules for a mere alternative page limit. This is the adoption of an “Expedited Decision” analogous to the URS system, recently created by the STI. In October, the ICANN Board sent the URS back to the GNSO because **expedited decision making processes involve substantive rights and must be subject to the procedures and policy-making processes of the GNSO and its Council.*** The same concepts, and requirements, apply here.

2. There is nothing supplemental or merely procedural about these proposals. These proposals involve substantive change which will limit the rights of domain name registrants. As the just-completed STI URS recommendations show, expedited decision-making processes bring to bear serious and important issues of fairness and due process. The URS drafting team found that defining the elements of the UDRP claim precisely – and with the clear inclusion of safe harbors (the URS’ modelled on the Nominet example) constitute critically important factors in a rapid decision-making process.

Further, as the STI agreed, rapid reviews, especially in the case of defaults, should include additional procedures to protect and benefit the domain name registrants who may not even know the UDRP or URS proceedings are taking place. Such protections were placed into the STI’s just-completed URS -- but could not have been seen by the CAC which requested its recommendations (modeled on the IRT Report alone) prior to the results of the Board-requested STI work).

3. The UDRP is meant to be a uniform system and CAC’s amendment will operate against that uniformity. CAC is suggesting changes to create new substantive language that is not in conformity with the original scope of the UDRP. The uniformity of the UDRP is based on all UDRP providers conducting the same type of substantive review. The CAC new process breaks this uniformity seeking to create a whole new mechanism.

Thus, the CAC proposal raises serious competition concerns. It is unfair that one UDRP service provider should move forward with an advantageous new process that may lure complainants away from other forums. The UDRP was meant to be a uniform system, and accordingly, rapid decision rules, as they apply to existing gTLDs, must take place through the GNSO and apply equally to all providers.

4. The CAC proposal certainly will impact non-commercial and free speech domain names. As the CAC proposal does not include safe harbors for domain name registrants, its proposals do not include the balance of fair use and due process which constitute the basis of the newly-formulated and newly-recommended URS.

5. Further, the new CAC proposal is premised on inaccurate assumptions about default and domain names – to the substantive detriment of good faith domain name registrants. The CAC proposal presumes bad faith at default – despite the very short timeframe for notice and response that have characterized the UDRP since its outset (a timeframe far faster than court, and even than most administrative proceedings). The CAC proposals undercut the basic fairness of the UDRP, and the fairness and balance of the newly-introduced URS.

Overall, CAC is an accredited ICANN UDRP provider and should comply within a specific mandate. Despite CAC’s effort to present these changes as part of its supplemental rules, in reality they are substantive and will affect the future of the UDRP.

Such a submission, particularly by a UDRP provider so new to the UDRP process (in operation for only a year) and taking place while the URS was under serious consideration and substantive re-evaluation, will be viewed by all as unauthorized, unfair and seriously flawed.

Going Forward:
At a minimum, ICANN must reissue the comment period with a public notice that puts the public on notice that real rights – registrant rights – are being impacted under the UDRP pursuant to the change of policy being proposed by CAC.

The far better answer is for ICANN to strongly urge CAC to return to ICANN after a full review of the new URS. As the URS Drafting Committee, the STI, found and the UDRP Final Drafting Team before it, Registrants are entitled to the protections, fairness and due process. The STI 's URS came through a GNSO policy-making process. In addition, the URS proposal offers a heavily researched, carefully written and painstakingly edited rapid decision process from an expert and diverse group of trademark attorneys and technical experts representing Trademark Owners, Registrants, Registrars, Registries and individuals. It is a balance that adds to and rounds out the IRT recommendations, on which the CAC proposal was narrowly based.

The URS text, and its process of creation, should help inform and guide the CAC rapid decision process.

Overall, the procedural and substantive proposals suggested by the CAC must be legitimate revisions to the UDRP. These changes, and all major changes in the UDRP procedures, must be a part of ICANN’s bottom-up policy process undertaken through ICANN’s Policy Development Process (PDP).

Whatever happens next, this proceeding, as designated, must not continue. Suspending this proceeding for further work will benefit the entire ICANN community -- trademark owners, registrants, individual, registrars and registries, and CAC.

It also will serve the integrity of the ICANN process, and the UDRP, with a full and fair process.


Very sincerely yours,




Kathryn Kleiman, Esq.
NCUC Co-Founder, US Trademark Attorney, UDRP Drafter & URS Drafter

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

URS Drafter and author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation” (University of Strathclyde)

Robin D. Gross, Esq.

Chair of NCUC, IP Justice Executive Director, and URS D

WIPO initiates individual fast-track UDRP process.

In the midst of ICANN's decision to ask the GNSO to create proposals on trademark protection mechanisms, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced that it will launch a fast-track UDRP process (http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2328845&LS=EMS332232).

At the Seoul meeting last week, the GNSO authorized the creation of a Special Trademark Interest (STI) team to come up with answers on the ICANN's staff recommendations on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS).

Today WIPO announced its intention to create a fast-track system, similar to the one the STI is working for the URS. “We are not proposing to change the UDRP policy or rules at all. Instead, using the existing framework, WIPO expects to offer a new and more efficient fast-track option based on adjustment to WIPO case practice under the UDRP", Erik Wilbers stated.

The WIPO move is flawed and creates various problems. Here is an account:

1. It is illegitimate: WIPO is acting on its own. It is not acting in its capacity as an inter-governmental organization nor as an ICANN-accredited center. It creates and suggests policy contrary to its role as a service provider. (Would we accept the same by the other ICANN-accredited centers?)

2. Non-transparent: What is the process WIPO followed to create this fast-track system? Which cases will the system cover? What are the parameters of the new system and how will it fit within the UDRP? These are legitimate questions that WIPO has not disclosed.

3. WIPO is justifying the system on loose and arbitrary conclusions: WIPO's process and the conclusions and justifications that lead the organization to create this policy are not evident. Center Director, Erik Wilbers stated: "The domain name system has evolved. We have seen automated registrations, parking and pay-per-click and privacy issues. In addition, we have seen vast increases in domain name registrations. The language rules have also been abused in some cases.”

4. It is non-accountable: WIPO has not consulted all the interested parties. While ICANN should be applauded for following its buttom-up process by creating the STI, WIPO is not seeking the views of the Internet and trademark community.

5. It sets a dangerous precedent: WIPO wants through this fast-track process to deal with the 75% of cases that are not defended. This creates a dangerous precedent and considers all defaults bad faith, continuing the dialectic of the UDRP.

6. It will have a negative impact on registrants: Despite what WIPO states, the new process will negatively impact the already fragile rights of respondents. What about 'trademark lawyer abuse' issues and due process?

7. It will encourage bias: WIPO is known for its bias and the wide discretion of its panels. This process will magnify these problems as trademark owners will use and abuse the system to their advantage.

8. It will suppress free speech: The new process will encourage the creation of a solely commercial DNS. Free speech will be in danger.

9. The system will be gamed: Trademark owners will use the fast-track process and if they lose they will proceed to the standard UDRP.

10. It is anti-competitive: The WIPO process will place the other centers out of the competition. Trademark owners will prefer the new, fast WIPO process - we should anticipate a significant decline in their case law.

ICANN should send an immediate, urgent cease and desist letter to WIPO to withdraw from this process, and wait for the GNSO to submit its recommendations to the ICANN board. If WIPO does not comply, ICANN should proceed to revoke WIPO's UDRP accreditation.

Special Trademark Interest (STI) team

Dear bloggers,

just to give you an update. ICANN - via the GNSO - has authorized the creation of a Special Trademark Interest (STI) team, tasked to tackle trademark issues. Constituencies are expected to select their representatives to discuss these issues and reach a consensus. The team will most likely be comprised of 12 people from a divergence of groups.

More updates to come soon.

ICANN is sending trademark issues back to the GNSO

Here are some initial thoughts on ICANN's response to the IRT proposal, published a little earlier this month. Please bear in mind that ICANN is requesting GNSO¹s consensus view on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). These are the views of myself and Kathy Kleiman and a reflection of our sense of events. NCUC will be meeting at length in Seoul to discuss the issues and develop our position for moving forward. To see the new documents, drafted by ICANN staff, please go to [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-u...] for Uniform Rapid Suspension Service and [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-t...] for Clearinghouse.

First, some great news. The Globally Protected Marks List (GMPL) is completely gone (or so it appears at this stage). The NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) was against the GPML from the beginning and in White Paper, Kathy Kleiman and myself submitted to ICANN (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...), we further elaborated on the dangers of proceeding with the GPML.


The IP Clearinghouse is now re-named Trademark Clearinghouse. I consider this to be a great development. The term 'IP' encompasses other rights (patents, copyright, etc) and this is not the role of the Clearinghouse ¬ nor should it be. The Clearinghouse is just a repository and ICANN was correct in recommending a new, more restrictive name, following our White Paper (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...).


The ICANN proposal did not follow NCUC¹s recommendation for regional clearinghouses. This was an important issue for nations and for IDNs. One entity cannot know the trademark laws and practices of all countries; but regional registries will understand the laws and nuances of trademark practice in the countries of their region. We expect to see some attention on this issue from GAC members at this meeting.



One clear problem of the Trademark Clearinghouse is its creation of a new, a very new, right to a global common law mark. A common law mark, which is trademark protection although there is no registration, is a very unusual right. It exists largely in common law countries, such as the UK and US. Very few countries allow trademark rights absent trademark registration (e.g., though a national Trademark Office) and even those countries with common law protection have national trademark registration (which all serious trademark registrants will use). The new proposal is problematic in that it allows any name written or expressed on a handkerchief, on a label, on letterhead to be listed and thus to gain global protection – absent any proof of national protection. That's a real problem.

The URS is a different story. It has gone worse.


As always, we have the same question: why create a new system and not stick to the UDRP and amend it accordingly? The UDRP was designed for quick, cheap takedown of domain names. The URS is too quick, too cheap and new proposal fails even to limit cases to the “egregious cases” of domain name use that the IRT had highlighted.

NCUC and the White Paper submitted to ICANN mentioned that the creation of the URS could address Œserial cybersquatting¹, a proposal that was not taken into consideration (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...). So, the system will be open to gaming and abuse. The idea is for the URS to 'lock' the domain name rather than transfer or cancel it, as it happens with the UDRP. But, here is a possible outcome of this: trademark owners will use the cheap and fast URS to 'lock' the domain name and then proceed to the UDRP (submitting the URS decision as evidence for bad faith) and get transfer of the domain name.

The URS continues to use and justify itself in the dialectic of the UDRP. The new proposal says that the URS standard is similar to the UDRP, but the burden of proof is higher – but it is much, much lower.

Moreover, there is no mention on the legitimate rights or interests of domain name holders and the deadlines are too short ¬ 14 days as opposed to the UDRP¹s 20 days ¬ although there is a possibility for a seven-day extension. Trademark owners will game the system, file on Christmas Eve, and a domain name will be lost before the registrant even knows it is of concern. This should be a huge problem for all registrants: noncommercial, commercial and individual. It's simply not fair; it's not due process.

Further, the respondent is required to submit a statement on truth and accuracy of the submissions, while the trademark owners appears not to be under the same obligation. Why?

Also, beware, one error on your response, and you lose. The new URS proposal also the definition of Œdefault¹ to include non-compliance with any the filling requirements-- even minor, even by a registrant representing himself or herself. This is unfair, considering that mistakes are human and do not necessarily indicate an attempt to abuse the system. Creating such a rule, under the default definition, which is already subjected to UDRP misinterpretations, creates a very bad precedent.

Basically, the URS, as revised, preempts, replaces and displaces the UDRP without any of its balance or fairness. It does not focus on egregious cases, but all garden variety disputes – and gives the trademark owners a nearly automatic win.

This can't be the way we want to open new gTLDs. And mass freezing of domain names under the URS can't be the way we can expect registrants to flock to the new gTLDs registry applicants want to offer.

The IRT Proposals of an IP Clearinghouse Dangers/Problems And Innovative Solutions

Paper shared on August 7, 2009

Introduction

Under the IRT’s proposal, the IP Clearinghouse takes ICANN far outside its scope and technical mandate. It is an intellectual property structure that has no barrier to creation in the private sector and is consistent with the types of private sector services, including monitoring and alert, now being offered. Moreover, the creation of such a superstructure of ICANN, a single monolith, will attract such lobbying from brand owners that the rollout of new gTLDs may be further delayed.

What the IRT specifically proposes:

· The IP Clearinghouse must be capable of holding data relating to the legal rights of trademark owners, including both registered rights and unregistered rights.

· The data should be submitted by trademark owners directly, or through a registry or registrar, to the IP Clearinghouse together with a reasonable fee.

· Trademark owners must grant a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable license to their data to ICANN, which will in turn sublicense it to the IP Clearinghouse.

(I think we should move Dangers/Problems up here)

What we recommend: Market-based Private, Regional Trademark Clearinghouses (TMC) - following the WTO model of regional Clearinghouses for trade agreements.

Why opt for Regional Trademark Clearinghouses (TMC):

1. Regional clearinghouses can relate better and respond more efficiently to the differences of trademark laws across the world;

2. Regional clearinghouses will be able to respond and better protect signs of cultural diversity and cultural significance. (Words like ‘the Acropolis’ or ‘the Taj Mahal’ do not have the same historical significance for Greece or India as for the rest of the world. This will also be in line with WIPO’s ongoing work on ‘Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Traditional Cultural Expression/Folklore”).

3. Regional clearinghouses will work better with national Trademark Offices, which, essentially, are the most appropriate sources to guide this discussion – it is not ICANN. It is the national Trademark Offices that can best work together on a regional basis to support regional TMCs. Further, virtually all national Trademark Offices nowadays maintain databases with their trademark listings. While only some provide access to these databases openly to the public online, they could make access easily available to private TMCs in which they had a hand in creating and/or running and/or overseeing.

4. Regional clearinghouses will be less responsive to abuse, due to their familiarity with the validity of trademark registrations.

5. Regional clearinghouses will also tackle better the concerns over IDNs. To serve IDNs, the private, regional TMCs are in the best position to meeting the needs of trademark owners working in their own languages and scripts.

6. Regional clearinghouses are in conformity with ICANN’s mandate for promoting competition.

Dangers/Problems with the IRT Clearinghouse Proposal

· ICANN has neither scope nor authority to create a single, monolithic, undefined superstructure to adjudicate legal rights. The creation of such a legal regime falls completely outside the function of ICANN as set out in the foundational White Paper.

· Even if ICANN had the authority – which it does not – it should not want to create a single, monolithic IP Clearinghouse because such a process will change the nature of the community ICANN serves. The jockeying for position in the IP Clearinghouse, the hope of extending its reach to even the dimmest trademark and other intellectual property right, will lead to a run on ICANN by trademark owners. This discussion, debate and jockeying for rules of the IP Clearinghouse should happen outside the bounds of ICANN.

· Under its current structure, the Clearinghouse will be open to abuse. On page 13 of the recommendation, the IRT states: “It can also perform similar functions for other types of RPMs besides those recommended by the IRT at this point”. This provides too much discretionary power to the administrator of the Clearinghouse, which can easily lead to abuse.

· There are too many gaps with the current IPC proposal, which should be anticipated that they will increase costs (administrative and external), lead to litigation and create bureaucracy and confusion.

· The IRT report allows any trademark – both registered and unregistered – to be listed. This is wrong – any geographical name, personal name, ‘reading book’ club name will be able to be listed. (Indirect Horizontal Abuse)

· Inclusion in the Clearinghouse of any rights that do not constitute valid federal or national trademarks will require an intense validation process. This is not cost-effective for either ICANN or the registries/registrars.

· The validation concerning established legal rights falls outside the scope of ICANN.

· It is unclear from the recommendation the kind of affidavits trademark owners are expected to submit to the Clearinghouse. There is no mention on verification processes on the validity of these affidavits.

· The Clearinghouse is meant to reduce costs and be efficient. Under this proposal it fails, since it suggests a structure that depends much on ICANN, registries and registrars. Similarly, unfamiliar ICANN practices, combined with non-uniform registry rules, will impair the efficiency of the IPC.

We propose the Private, Regional Trademark Clearinghouses (TMCs) meet the following standards:

· TMCs initially hold data relating to the valid trademark registration issued by a federal or national jurisdiction that conducts substantive examination of trademark applications prior to registration.

· TMCs should not accept data in respect of trademark registrations that relate to what we call ‘domain name services’. The USPTO[1] and the European Union[2] have both declared the invalidity of such registrations.

· The data should be submitted by trademark owners directly to the relevant TMC.

· ICANN foster a TMC in each region. The TMC be encouraged to provide detailed information about the trademark, including the category of goods and services in which the mark is registered. ICANN might further foster a common database search mechanisms for registrars to search trademarks by country, date of registration, international classification number (where applicable), etc. (following the WTO model for trade agreements, http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres09_e/pr548_e.htm).

· Trademark owners should submit to the TMC as much relevant information as possible, which should include, but not limited to, proof of valid trademark registration(s) as authorized by National Trademark Offices.

· TMCs shall be operated by neutral service providers that are not currently in a direct contractual relationship with ICANN;

· TMCs must be technically state-of-the-art and their daily operation must enhance the rapid provisioning of domain registrations.

· TMCs must be scalable. For example, they should be able to accommodate identical trademarks registered under different classes of goods or services or in different trademark registration offices, recognizing the territorial nature of trademark law and international classification systems.

· TMCs must be able to accommodate all types of registered trademarks, including word marks and device (logo) marks that contain a word element from every trademark registration office in the world.

· TMCs must be able to deliver fast, accurate information in a standard format using a state-of-art technical platform that is secure and robust.

· TMCs must possess knowledge and expertise in the field of trademark law, processing efficiency, project management skills and risk management skills.

· Listing in the TMC should be optional. It is recommended for registrars and registries to work with the TMCs appropriate to their languages, regions, scripts and community.

· TMCs must also be capable of holding data in the original language and not merely a translation, accommodating this way the particularities of IDNs.

Note: We suggest as a model for future Trademark Clearinghouses the market-models of today, including PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the <.eu> sunrise period. Information can be found: https://www.maxnet.eu/conditions/en/final_presentation_road_shows.pdf

Kathryne Kleiman, Esq.

Trademark Law Attorney, UDRP Drafter

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Law professor,

Law School,

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

---

[1] See Paragraph II.E of USPTO Examination Guide 02-99, http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/notices/guide299.htm

[2]http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/CTM/legalReferences/partb_examination.pdf