Upload
elizabeth-schierman
View
952
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ICANN stands ready to accept applications for new generic Top-Level Domains in January 2012. The New gTLD Program brings with it rights protection mechanisms that may be of use to trademark holders seeking to protect their rights.
Citation preview
CLE Presentation Sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section of the Idaho State Bar
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
.COM AND .NET, MEET .ANYTHING
INTRODUCING THE NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN PROGRAM
ELIZABETH HERBST SCHIERMANUS Patent Attorney
© 2011 EHSchierman
TOPICS COVERED
TERMINOLOGYHISTORYPROGRAM IN A NUTSHELLAPPLICATION PROCESSRIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS
URS VS. UDRPFUTURE OUTLOOK
TERMINOLOGY
DOMAIN NAMES TOP-LEVEL: WWW.WEBSITE.COM 2ND-LEVEL: WWW.WEBSITE.COM GTLD: GENERIC TLD CCTLD: COUNTRY CODE TLD
ICANN – THE INTERNET CORP. FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
TERMINOLOGY
REGISTRY OPERATOR OPERATES THE GTLDE.G., VERISIGN, INC.
REGISTRARSERVICES THE GTLDE.G., GO DADDY
REGISTRANTOPERATES INDIVIDUAL DOMAINS
HISTORY
PRE-1998: .COM, .EDU, .GOV, .INT, .MIL, .NET, .ORG, .ARPA
1998 - ICANN CREATED 2000 – 1ST GTLD EXPANSION .AERO, .BIZ, .COOP, .INFO, .MUSEUM, .NAME, .PRO
HISTORY
2004 – 2ND GTLD EXPANSION: .ASIA, .CAT, .JOBS, .MOBI, .POST, .TEL, .XXX, .TRAVEL
2005 – ICANN (GNSO – GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORG.) BEGINS POLICY DEVELOPMENT
HISTORY
2008 – 1ST DRAFT VERSION OF APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK PUBLISHED
JUNE 2011 – PROGRAM APPROVED
JANUARY 2012 – APPLICATION PERIOD WILL OPEN
2013? – NEW GTLDS
PROGRAM IN A NUTSHELL
WHY NEW GTLDS? - DIVERSITY, CHOICE, & COMPETITION
APP. NEW GTLD = APP. TO RUN BUSINESS
ELIGIBILITY: ESTABLISHED CORPS., ORGS., OR INSTITUTIONS IN GOOD STANDING
PROGRAM IN A NUTSHELL
APP. PROCESS IN ROUNDS 1ST RND APP. WINDOW = 90 DAYS
EVAL. FEE - $185,000 TOTAL APP. PROCESS TIME: 9-20 MOS.
APP. CLASSIFICATION: COMMUNITY-BASED, OR STANDARD
APPLICATION PROCESS
1: APPLY WINDOW: JAN 12–APR 12, 2012 $5000 TO REGISTER & GET FORM COMPLETE FORM, PAY $180,000DEMONSTRATE ABILITY TO OPERATE REGISTRY
2: COMPLETENESS CHECK
APPLICATION PROCESS
3: APPLICATION PUBLISHED W/I 2 WKS OF CLOSE OF APP. SUBMISSION PERIOD
4: COMMENT PERIOD W/I 60 DAYS OF PUBLICATION
5: GAC – EARLY WARNING W/I 60 DAYS OF PUBLICATION
APPLICATION PROCESS
6: INITIAL EVALUATION (~5 MOS.) STRING REVIEWSIMILARITY IN APPEARANCE TO EXISTING TLDS OR RESERVED NAMES
REVIEW OF APPLICANT’S TECHNICAL, OPERATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES
APPLICATION PROCESS
7: OBJECTIONS OPENS: POSTING COMPLETE APPS. CLOSES: ~7 MOS. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
8: STRING CONTENTION SAME OR SIMILAR STRINGS COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVAL. AND/OR AUCTION (2.5–6 MOS.)
APPLICATION PROCESS
9: EXECUTION OF REGISTRY AGREEMENT WITH ICANN
10: PRE-DELEGATION TECHNICAL TEST (~ 2 MOS.)
11: DELEGATION
TOTAL TIME: 9-20 MOS.
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
APPLICANT SCREENING HISTORY OF CYBERSQUATTING
INITIAL EVALUATION: STRING REVIEWS:STRING SIMILARITY – VISUAL SIMILARITY W/ PROBABILITY OF USER CONFUSION AVG., REASONABLE INTERNET USER
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
INITIAL EVALUATION (CONT.): STRING REVIEWS (CONT.):APP. GTLD COMPARED TOEXISTING GTLDSAPPLIED-FOR GTLDSREQUESTED IDN CCTLDSRESERVED NAMES
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
INITIAL EVALUATION (CONT.): IDENTICAL = APP. CAN’T BE SUBMITTED
SIMILAR:EXISTING GTLD: FAILAPPLIED-FOR: CONTENTION SET
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
OBJECTION: GROUNDS:1) STRING CONFUSION OBJECTIONCONFUSINGLY-SIMILAR TO EXISTING TLD OR SAME-ROUND APPLIED FOR TLD
STANDING: EXISTING TLD OR APPLICANT IN CURRENT ROUND
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 2) LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTIONUSE TAKES UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF OR UNJUSTIFIABLY IMPAIRS DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OR REPUTATION OF TRADEMARK OR CREATES AN IMPERMISSIBLE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 2) LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION (CONT.):STANDING: RIGHTSHOLDERE.G., TRADEMARK RIGHTS HOLDERREGISTERED ORUNREGISTERED
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 2) LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION (CONT.):FACTORS:SIMILARITYBONA FIDE ACQUISITION AND USE BY OBJECTOR
STRENGTHKNOWLEDGE OR PATTERN
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 2) LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION (CONT.):FACTORS (CONT.):APPLICANT’S USE OR PREPARATION TO USE W/ BONA FIDE OFFERING OF GOODS OR SERVICES OR INFO IN NON-INTERFERING WAY
APPLICANT’S MARKSLIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 3) LIMITED PUBLIC INTEREST OBJ.CONTRARY TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED LEGAL NORMS OF MORALITY AND PUBLIC ORDER, PER INT’L LAW
STANDING: ANYONE (QUICK LOOK FOR FRIVOLOUS &/OR ABUSIVE OBJECTIONS)
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
GROUNDS (CONT.): 4) COMMUNITY OBJECTIONSUBSTANTIAL OPP’N FROM A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF COMMUNITY TARGETED
STANDING: ESTABLISHED INST. ASSOCIATED W/ CLEARLY-DELINEATED COMMUNITY
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
OBJECTION: FILE WITH DRSP IN ENGLISH BURDEN: ON OBJECTOR EVALUATION:1 OR 3 EXPERTS ON PANELADDITIONAL STATEMENTS? IN-PERSON HEARING?
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
OBJECTION (CONT.): COSTSFILING FEE $1,000-$5,000BOTH FOR FILING OBJECTION & RESPONDING TO OBJECTION
TOTAL: $2,000-$122,000+
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
STRING CONTENTION: CONTENTION SETS:COMMUNITY PRIORITY EVAL.COMMUNITY-BASED APP(S). GET PRIORITY
SCORED – NEED 14+ POINTS IF >1 C-B APP. SURVIVES, SURVIVORS GO TO AUCTION
RPMS – APP. PROCESS
STRING CONTENTION (CONT.) CONTENTION SETS (CONT.)AUCTIONBIDS IN ROUNDS – START PRICE AND END PRICE
CONTINUES UNTIL 1 REMAINS
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSEREGISTERED MARK HOLDERS CAN SEEK LISTING – FEES ?
TRADEMARK CLAIMS SERVICEW/I 60 DAYS OF REG. OPENINGNOTICE TO REGISTRANT - MARK IS IN CLEARINGHOUSE
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN (CONT.) TRADEMARK CLAIMS SERVICE (CONT.)NOTICE TO MARK HOLDER - DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED
SUNRISE PERIODALLOWS TRADEMARK HOLDERS TO REGISTER DOMAINS OR PREVENT REGISTRATION BY OTHERS
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN (CONT.) SUNRISE PERIOD (CONT.)W/I 30 DAYS OF PRE-LAUNCHPRECEDES “LAND RUSH” OR GENERAL AVAILABILITY PERIOD
NOTICE TO MARK HOLDER - SOMEONE SEEKS SUNRISE REG.
E.G., .XXX IN SUNRISE PERIOD NOW
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION (URS)STANDING: REGISTERED OR COURT-VALIDATED MARK HOLDER
AGAINST: REGISTRANT (2ND LEVEL)REGISTRANT NO LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR INTEREST IN DOMAIN NAME
REGISTERED & USED IN BAD FAITH
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN URS (CONT.)STANDARD: CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE
REMEDY: SUSPENSION OF DOMAIN NAME
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN TRADEMARK POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS (PDDRP)STANDING: TRADEMARK HOLDER CLAIMING INFRINGEMENTREGISTERED OR UNREGISTERED
AGAINST: REGISTRY OPERATORY
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN PDDRP (CONT.)TOP LEVELTAKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OR REPUTATION OF MARK; OR
IMPAIRING DISTINCTIVE CHARTER, ETC., OF MARK; OR
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN PDDRP (CONT.)TOP LEVEL (CONT.)LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
2ND LEVELPATTERN OF PROFIT FROM SALE OF INFRINGING DOMAINS, &
TOP LEVEL VIOLATION
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN PDDRP (CONT.)BURDEN: COMPLAINANTSTANDARD: CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE
REMEDY: VARIETY OF GRADUATED ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
RPMS MANDATED BY ICANN REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP)STANDING: HARMED ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL
AGAINST: COMMUNITY-BASED REGISTRY OPERATOR
RPMS – POST DELEGATION
OTHER RPMS IMPLEMENTED BY REGISTRY OPERATOR
UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME RESOLUTION POLICY (UDRP) IMPLEMENTED IN 1999 AGAINST: 2ND LEVEL REGISTERED & USED IN BAD FAITH
URS VS. UDRP
STANDING URS: HOLDER OF REGISTERED ORCOURT-VALIDATED MARK
UDRP: MARK HOLDER, REGISTERED OR UNREGISTERED
STANDARD URS: CLEAR & CONVINCING UDRP: PREPONDERANCE
URS VS. UDRP
COST URS: LOWER (E.G., $300 FILING) UDRP: HIGHER (E.G., $1,500+)
TIMING URS: ~FASTER (E.G., RESP. 14D) UDRP: ~SLOWER (E.G., RESP. 20D)
URS VS. UDRP
REMEDIES URS: SUSPENDED DOMAIN UDRP: TRANSFER AVAILABLE
URS – ONLY FOR NEW GTLDS (?)
FUTURE OUTLOOK
FIRST NEW GTLDS LATE 2012 OR EARLY 2013
ESTIMATED 200-300 TLDS DELEGATED ANNUALLY (NO MORE THAN 1000)
FUTURE OUTLOOK
POTENTIAL CONS FOR TM HOLDERS MORE LAND FOR SQUATTERS MORE OPTIONS FOR INFRINGERS MORE TO MONITOR MORE EXPENSEOBJECTIONSCLEARINGHOUSE FEESSUNRISE PERIOD FEES
FUTURE OUTLOOK
POTENTIAL PROS FOR TM HOLDERS MORE MARKETING FLEXIBILITY ANOTHER TM SEARCH TOOLCLEARINGHOUSE DATA
AVOID UNINTENTIONAL INFRINGEMENT CLEARINGHOUSE NOTICE
FUTURE OUTLOOK
POTENTIAL PROS FOR TM HOLDERS EARLY DETECTION OF INFRINGEMENT BY OTHERSNOTICE OF REG. OF DOMAINS
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT EVIDENCETM CLAIMS SERVICE NOT.
PERMANENT BLOCKAGE OF UNWANTED DOMAINS
FUTURE OUTLOOK
STEPS FOR TRADEMARK HOLDERS MONITOR COMPLETE GTLD APPS. FILE OBJECTIONS REGISTER WITH CLEARINGHOUSES REGISTER MARKSPLAIN WORD VS. DESIGN MARKS
CONSIDER URS FOR CLEAR-CUT CYBERSQUATTING OR INFRINGEMENT
QUESTIONS ?
Elizabeth Herbst SchiermanUS Patent Attorneywww.linkedin.com/in/EHSchierman
© 2011 EHSchierman