Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
The National Law Forum - Page 676 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

Election-year Policy Change: Obama Decision Eases Undocumented Kids’ Turmoil

The National Law Review recently published an article by Susan Ferriss of Center for Public Integrity regarding President Obama’s Decision about Undocumented Children:

Thousands of 16- to 30-year-olds could benefit from relief that will let them work legally, and stop fearing deportation.

A profound change for immigrant youths with no way to seek legal status

President Barack Obama responds as he is interrupted while announcing that his administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, Friday, June 15, 2012, during a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Susan Walsh/AP

President Barack Obama responds as he is interrupted while announcing that his administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives, Friday, June 15, 2012, during a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Susan Walsh/AP

In a sweeping policy change with political overtones, President Obama has announced that his administration will allow undocumented youths who grew up here to apply for work permits and spare them from deportation if they meet certain criteria.

The policy will not include a path to legal residency, a first step before applying for citizenship, so it differs from the proposed DREAM Act. That proposal once had bipartisan Congressional support but has repeatedly stalled in the face of Republican opposition. Even though the new policy falls short of the path to legal status that immigration activists would like, the change is likely to expand Obama’sappeal among crucial Latino voters in November.

Obama’s decision will also have tremendous personal impact on a population of young people who were brought here as children and have no way to pursue legal status, either here or back in birth countries, under current immigration rules.

Certain states, such as California, Arizona, Texas, New York and Florida, are home to significant numbers of these youths. And many of them have anguished over their predicament. They say they have been left with no option but to work with fake identification, or under the table, or drive without a license or not drive at all. Some have been admitted to college but barred from pursuing loans and grants. Others have given up such dreams.

Stories of ambitious students foiled by their status and with no way to fix it have become a staple of TV and newspaper coverage. A few years back, college students at Sacramento City College made a short fiction film about undocumented students who had grown up as Americans only to discover that they were illegal immigrants. Some of the actors were undocumented. The characters talked about their fear of getting stopped by police, as well as their complex feelings about their parents’ decision to bring them to the United States.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano explains the new criteria in this memo. The policy will be limited to youths who arrived before the age of 16, have lived here continuously for at least five years and who are not older than 30. Criminal backgrounds will disqualify youths from the benefit. Youths must also be in school, have graduated or obtained a GED.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®

5 Easy Steps that “7-Figure Attorneys” use to Create Powerful Marketing Plans

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about The Rainmaker Institute’s Marketing Plan Guide for Attorneys:

Here’s What You’ll Discover When You Read This Report:

♦ How to identify your target market

♦ Whether you should create a niche for your practice

♦ How to determine your unique competitive advantage

♦ How to select effective marketing strategies for your practice

♦ How to create your financial plan

♦ How to devise a Marketing Action Plan

♦ …And much, much more!

The DotCom Shake-Up: How Will You Protect Your Rights in the New Imminent Domain Name Release?

Barnes & Thornburg LLP‘s Internet and Technology Group recently had an article, The DotCom Shake-Up: How Will You Protect Your Rights in the New Imminent Domain Name Release?, featured in The National Law Review:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, often referred to as ICANN, has now released its list of 1,930 applications for proposed new generic Top-Level Domain Names (“New gTLDs”). A list of the New gTLDs and the respective applicants is available here.Much speculation has been made about how these New gTLDs, if successful, will impact the Internet. Brand owners and others are advised to be diligent in preventing others from securing any New gTLDs that may adversely affect their rights.

As expected, many of the applications seek registration of New gTLDs that correspond with generic terms such as .business, .city, .computer and .beer. Still, numerous other applications include domains that correspond with brand names, such as .google, .hbo, and .ferrari.  In many cases, more than one applicant has sought registration of the same New gTLD. Additionally, some of the New gTLDs requested, undoubtedly correspond with trademarks belonging to others.

To address potential disputes over New gTLD applications, ICANN offers several types of pre-delegation dispute resolution procedures to address objections to registration, including:

  1. Legal Rights Objections;
  2. Community Objections;
  3. String Confusion Objections (objections based on confusing similarity to existing top level domains such as .com or .info); and
  4. Limited Public Interest Objections (for example, objections based on human or civil rights); and
  5. Intergovernmental Organization objections

Prior to ICANN’s approval of a New gTLD, third parties will have an opportunity to file a formal objection to a proposed application on the above-stated grounds. Currently, the objection filing window is anticipated to be seven months, from June 13, 2012 to Jan. 13, 2013.

Most objections will likely consist of Legal Rights Objections and Community Objections.

Legal Rights Objections

Brand owners are strongly encouraged to review the list of New gTLD applications to help identify potential legal rights violations.  If a potential violation is identified, brand owners can initiate an arbitration proceeding requesting that an independent panel determine whether an applicant’s potential use of the applied-for New gTLD would be likely to infringe the brand owner’s trademark rights.  To address any such concerns, brand owners may seek to prevent the registration of applied for gTLDs that:

(i)  take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark;

(ii)  unjustifiably impair the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark; or

(iii) otherwise create an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark.

Community Objections

Established institutions that are associated with clearly delineated community may also have a basis to object to New gTLD applications.  To prevail, an objector must demonstrate there is a substantial opposition to registration of that New gTLD by the community and that the use of the New gTLD will cause a material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of its associated community and the broader Internet community.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

Supreme Court of Texas to Federal Circuit: Don’t Mess with Texas but Feel Free to Mess with Texas Patent Attorneys; SCOTUS May Weigh In on “Arising-Under” Jurisdiction

Recently an article about Texas Patent Attorneys by Adam Auchter Allgood and Paul Devinsky of McDermott Will & Emery appeared in The National Law Review:

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Texas, while specifically stating that it is not bound by the holdings of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has relied on the Federal Circuit opinions in Immunocept (IP Update, Vol. 10, No. 10)and Air Measurement (IP Update, Vol. 14, No. 8) in determining that the federal courts possesses exclusive jurisdiction for state malpractice claims “arising-under” underlying patent matters. Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634, 653 (Supr. Ct. Tex., Dec. 16, 2011) (Green, J.) (Guzman, J., dissenting, joined by Medina, J. and Willett, J.). This decision is now at the U.S. Supreme Court as the subject of a petition for cert.

Minton is only one of a series of cases to explore the “arising under” jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit. The statute 28 U.S.C. §1338, which provides the federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction for any civil action “arising under” federal law relating to patents, has come under extensive scrutiny lately by the Federal Circuit. In several cases in which attorney malpractice was alleged in connection with patent procurement or enforcement, Circuit Judge O’Malley has taken the opportunity to present her views on the limits of the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit to hear such disputes which are grounded in state law. For example, Judge O’Malley has dissented from the dismissal of a petition seeking an en banc review of the 2010 precedential Federal Circuit opinion in Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A. (see IP Update, Vol. 13, No. 3), which found federal jurisdiction over a legal malpractice action involving missed deadlines in which no patent actually issued. Recent cases in which Judge O’Malley has aired her view on this jurisdictional issue include the following:

  • Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 10-1533 (Fed. Cir., April 11, 2012) (per curiam order) (O’Malley, J., dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc)
  • Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C., Case No. 11-1178 (Fed. Cir., May 4, 2012) (Reyna, J. (O’Malley, J., concurring in the result and conceding that under controlling Federal Circuit case law, the Federal Circuit is compelled to hear the case; but explaining why, in her view, it is not “proper” to do so)
  • Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, Case No. 11-1297 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2012) (Clevenger, J.) (O’Malley, J., concurring and urging en banc consideration of the jurisdictional issue)
  • Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Case No. 11-1012 (Fed. Cir. March 22, 2012) (per curiam) (O’Malley, J., concurring in the Court’s opinion on the malpractice claim that address the issue on appeal, while noting that controlling Federal Circuit authority “compels us to do so”; but also pointing out the “federalism considerations” that mitigate against doing so)
  • USSPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., Case No. 11-1525 (Fed. Cir., April 17, 2012) (per curiam) (O’Malley, J., joined by Mayer, J., concurring while voicing what she regards as “significant” federalism concerns that are raised by the Federal Circuit’s exercise of jurisdiction over “these purely state laws claims”)

While Judge O’Malley, a former federal district judge who presided over more than 100 patent and trademark cases, continues to follow the binding Federal CircuitDavis precedent, it is clear that she feels that it is an incorrect application of Supreme Court case law. Both state and federal courts are applying the four-part standard enumerated by the Supreme Court in 2005 in Grable, 545 U.S. 308, for the general “arising-under” jurisdiction of §1331 to the specific patent section of §1338. In Judge O’Malley’s view federal question jurisdiction, as discussed in Grable, exists if resolving a federal issue is necessary to resolution of the state-law claim; the federal issue is actually disputed; the federal issue is substantial; and federal jurisdiction will not disturb the balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Malpractice cases involving patents usually are one of two varieties involving either patent prosecution errors or non-asserted defenses during infringement litigation. Judge O’Malley tends to disagree with the application of the third Grable factor since most of the issues underlying malpractice claims are case-specific, factual inquiries and require only application, not interpretation of federal patent law and would have little or no bearing on other cases. As to the fourth factor, Judge O’Malley asserts that malpractice cases do not implicate any underlying patent rights themselves. Any patent issue that is decided will only inform the state law standards of causation or damages and would not have binding effect on other patent cases.

The majority in Minton (as well as controlling Federal Circuit case law) however, rely on the argument that a “case within a case” exists in malpractice claims, since patent issues must be analyzed in order for the plaintiff to prove a proximate causal connection that the harm or loss would not have occurred without the attorney’s malpractice. The Minton Court (like Federal Circuit precedent) is based on the rational that litigants benefit from judges who are familiar and experienced with complicated patent rules and that there is a strong federal interest in the uniform application of patent laws.

Practice Note: With the Texas Supreme Court decision in Minton currently teed up before the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge O’Malley may find her desired Federal Circuiten banc review bypassed as the issue may receive direct consideration by the Supreme Court. Certiorari briefs are currently being filed with the Supreme Court (Docket No. 11-1118). On April 26, Memorylink also filed a petition for cert to the Supreme Court drawing on Judge O’Malley’s dissent in Memorylink v. Motorola, arguing that by asserting jurisdiction on state law malpractice claims, the Federal Circuit is disturbing the appropriate balance between state and federal courts.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

ICC – Economic Sanctions in the Global Economy

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ICC Institute’s Economic Sanctions in the Global Economy Conference:

At a time when the global financial crisis has severely impacted trade flows and hampered world growth, what is the effect and the justification for the extraterritorial application of economic sanctions?

The long arm reach of law enforcement agencies sets global companies unprecedented challenges in terms of conflict of laws and regulatory jurisdiction. Dozens of criminal, administrative or regulatory investigations on both sides of the Atlantic are currently targeting billions of dollars worth of commercial transactions and cross-border payments. Penalties in the hundred of millions of dollars are regularly disclosed sanctioning global companies and banks for their past cross-border dealings . What is the right balance between the governments’ objective of moving to a safer world and the business reality? How are judges and arbitrators expected to adjudicate a claim for non-performance triggered by foreign economic sanctions?

Conference highlights
This event is unprecedented in bringing together senior government officials from both sides of the Atlantic and decision makers in global companies as well as their counsel. Speakers and participants have a unique opportunity to discuss in an open public-private forum the regulators’ approach towards economic sanctions and the expectation of industry leaders as to how sanctions could be better conceived and applied.

Who should attend?

Lawyers, compliance officers, bank executives, general managers, payment and treasury officers in companies and banks, government officials and academics.

Has Someone Applied to Register Your .BRAND? Top Five Things You Need to Know

The National Law Review recently published an article by Geri L. Haight of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding The Registration of Brands:

You’ve heard about the planned expansion of the domain name system, but what does it really mean for trademark owners?

Last year, the Internet Committee for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization responsible for the coordination of the global Internet domain name system, announced a plan to bring sweeping changes to the Internet’s generic top level domain (gTLD) structure. Internet users are familiar with gTLDs, if not by name. gTLDs are Internet extensions such as .com, .org and .net found at the end of a domain name. Under the new system, a business could apply to own its .BRAND. An automobile company could apply to own .CARS. A city government could apply to own .CITY. The possibilities, seemingly, are endless.

ICANN received 1900 applications for new gTLDs during the first application period, which is now closed. Google announced last week that it had applied for the gTLDs .GOOGLE, .YOUTUBE and .LOL among others. Canon Inc. announced that it has applied for the gTLD .CANON in order to “increase the convenience and effectiveness of its online communications.” The domain name registry Donuts Inc. announced that it has applied for 307 new gTLDs. The timeframe and process for reviewing the applications are somewhat fluid but the first new batch of gTLDs is slated to become active in early 2013. The remaining batch of applied-for gTLDs will not go live until 2014 or later. So what should trademark owners do now to prepare for the new regime?

1. Review and Analyze the List of Applied-For gTLDs

In what ICANN calls “Reveal Day,” on Wednesday, June 13, 2012, ICANN will publicly post a listing of all applied-for gTLD character strings. This will be the first public glimpse into which entities have applied to own which new gTLDs. Although some companies have announced publicly that they have submitted applications to participate in the new gTLD program, most have remained silent throughout the initial application phase. But all will be revealed on Reveal Day. Trademark owners should carefully review the list of applied-for gTLDs in order to determine if any conflict with pre-existing trademark rights. But remember, the list of applied-for gTLDs have not been approved by ICANN yet. There is time to take action if necessary to protect your trademark rights.

2. Submit a Comment to ICANN

What can you do if you learn on Reveal Day that someone has applied to register your .BRAND? Following publication on Reveal Day, interested parties may submit comments related to proposed new gTLDs to ICANN for consideration by the independent evaluators assessing each application. During the comment period, trademark owners can submit comments regarding potential trademark infringement, dilution, and related concerns raised by particular applications for gTLDs. Application comments received within 60 days of Reveal Day, i.e., by August 12th, will be available to the evaluation panel performing the initial evaluation reviews of all pending applications. Initial evaluation of the applications is expected to begin in early July.

3. Use Dispute Resolution Procedures to Object to Infringing gTLDs and/or Domain Names

Separate from the comment procedure, and prior to the approval of an applied-for gTLD, a formal objection process will be available to trademark owners. ICANN has appointed the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to be the exclusive provider of dispute resolution services when a third party files a formal “Legal Rights Objection” (LRO) to a pending application. A Legal Rights Objection can be filed where the applied-for gTLD (i) takes unfair advantage of the unique character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark, intergovernmental organization (IGO) name or acronym, or (ii) without justification, the gTLD impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark, IGO name or acronym, or (iii) creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark, IGO name or acronym. The LRO process offers a good option for trademark owners who believe that their trademark rights may be encroached upon by a particular applied-for gTLD. But the process comes with a price tag of $10,000 fee for arbitration of a LRO by a single-member panel. The applicant of the challenged gTLD similarly is required to pay a $10,000 fee. If the applicant fails to do so, the objection will be deemed successful. The sole remedies available for a LRO are the success or dismissal of the objection. Monetary damages are not available through this process.

Many anticipate that the problem of “cybersquatting” will dramatically increase with the expansion of the gTLD system. Cybersquatting refers to the bad faith registration of a domain name that contains another’s brand or trademark. If an applied-for gTLD is approved by ICANN and domain names registered using the new gTLD infringe upon your trademark rights, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) remains available to resolve domain name disputes. Under the UDRP, domain name disputes are typically resolved in approximately 45-60 days and the associated filing fees are relatively low (approximately $1500 to resolve a dispute involving up to 5 domain names). WIPO has stated that the UDRP is “the only proven mechanism in place to absorb the impact of gTLD expansion.”

Another alternative currently contemplated by ICANN is the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). The URS is intended to be a faster, more cost-efficient complement to the UDRP. It is intended for cases of trademark abuse. Unlike the UDRP, which allows a trademark owner to obtain the transfer of a domain name that impairs its trademark rights, the sole remedy available under the URS is the temporary suspension of a domain name for the duration of the registration period (which may be extended for one year). While the URS substantive criteria mirror that of the UDRP, there is a higher burden of proof for complainants. ICANN has not yet selected a vendor for the URS System.

4. Register Your Trademark With ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse

In connection with the launch of new gTLDs, ICANN plans to form a Trademark Clearinghouse. The Trademark Clearinghouse is intended to serve as a single database of authenticated, registered trademarks and will eliminate the need for trademark holders to register their marks in many different databases as new gTLDs are introduced. ICANN will require every new gTLD operator to utilize the Clearinghouse, which will be available globally and have the capabilities for validating trademark data from multiple global regions. As a result of these functions, the Trademark Clearinghouse is expected to play an important role in ensuring ongoing protection of trademark rights under the new scheme. If you are a trademark owner and have not applied to register a gTLD, registering your trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse is an important step in protecting your trademark rights in the new gTLD world. The fee for initial trademark authentication and validation services is expected to be less than $150 US per submission/trademark.

Trademark owners who lodge their marks with the Clearinghouse will obtain certain advantages and notifications during “sunrise” periods that will apply to registrations of second-level (to the left of the “dot,” such as “secondlevel” in secondlevel.BRAND) domain names within newly launched gTLDs. In addition, registrants of second-level domain names will receive (at least for some period of time) notifications of trademarks that are an identical match to their newly registered domain names. Second-level domain name registrants, though, are not prevented from registering the sought-after domain name based on registration of a trademark with the Clearinghouse. They are simply put on notice that the domain name may conflict with another’s trademark rights. Importantly, notice to domain name registrants will not be provided except where the match with a trademark is identical. So, if the second-level domain name contains a misspelling of a trademark, no notification will be given to the registrant.

5. Apply to Register Your Trademarks and Service Marks

Having federally-registered trademark rights will offer valuable protection as the new domain name system becomes a reality. To the extent that you are using or plan to use a trademark or service mark in connection with the offering of goods or services and have not yet applied for federal trademark protection, you should consider doing so now. A federal trademark registration provides many valuable benefits. To start, it provides the owner with rights on a national (as opposed to a regional) level. A federal registration also provides you with the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services listed in your registration. In connection with the new gTLD system, a federal trademark registration will help to strengthen and reinforce your trademark rights. It will also establish ownership of a particular trademark and, therefore, standing, to submit a legal right objection or other challenge to an applied-for gTLD or second-level domain name.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Webinar on Key Performance Indicators: Knowing the Numbers That Run Your Law Firm Now Available On-Demand

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Webinar on Key Performance Indicators (KPI) sponsored by The Rainmaker Institute:

Our law firm marketing webinars are great for attorneys who want to learn about proven legal marketing strategies in one-hour doses. But sometimes the timing just isn’t right. Which is why we are now providing one of our most popular webinars – Knowing the Numbers That Run Your Law Firm – in an on-demand format, so you can watch and learn at your convenience, as many times as you wish.

Over the last decade we have helped over 8,000 attorneys market and grow their business. During this time we have identified many of the key characteristics of highly successful law firms.

One of the more consistent ones is that they track specific numbers and key indicators that give them instant insight into how their law firm is performing on a weekly and monthly basis.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the numbers that make your law firm run. By analyzing these critical metrics, partners and owners of law firms can easily determine whether they are on track to achieve their goals or if they need to retool and refocus their marketing and business development efforts.

In this fast paced webinar, you learn:

  • How to easily identify the 12 key metrics your law firm needs to track and measure
  • How to set up a system to identify these numbers
  • The 7 critical systems every law firm must have
  • CPL and CPC: the 2 most important numbers every attorney must know in order to succeed
  • How to avoid “paralysis by analysis” and being overwhelmed by too much data
  • Delegating roles and responsibility to your staff
  • Using software to track your KPIs

If you’re a spreadsheet and data driven individual then you will love this webinar! However, if numbers scare you or you tend to ignore them because you have a hard time making heads or tails of all the different data you see, then this webinar is a “can’t miss” event!

We cut through the clutter and give you clear and easy to understand guidance on which numbers really matter the most, how to track this information, and what to do with it once you have it!

To register online for this on-demand webinar, click on this link: Knowing the Numbers That Run Your Law Firm

Domain Names Go Creative: Will We Soon See Dot-Poker?

Griffin Finan of Ifrah Law recently had an article about Domain Names published in The National Law Review:

Domain names on the Internet are about to get much more varied and creative. Soon websites will not just end in the few familiar suffixes like “com” or “edu,” but could end in things like “.movie” or ”.lawyer” or “.lol.”

On Wednesday, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization tasked with regulating Internet domain names, released a list detailing who has applied for new suffixes, also known as top-level domains (TLD). This is the third major expansion ICANN has allowed of domain name suffixes, in addition to a few others that have been allowed on an ad hoc basis. The new system will streamline the application process and allow for up to 1,000 new domain suffixes a year.

The application process allowed companies to apply for their own brand name to use as their domain suffix name. For instance, Apple applied for the “.apple” suffix. Amazon applies for 76 names including “.amazon” and “.zappos.” Google applied for over 100 suffixes, including “.google” and “.youtube,” as well as “.lol,” and “.book.”

An interesting development related to the world of online gaming is that four groups applied for domain names that would end in “.poker.” The companies that applied for the “.poker” suffix are U.S.-based Binky Mill, LLC and Dot Poker, LLC as well as European-based dot Poker Limited and Afilias Domains No. 5. Limited.

Now that the initial list of applicants for TLD’s has been released, the public will have 60 days to comment. This time period will allow for companies and organizations to see whether others’ applications conflict with their interests or their intellectual property. After conflicts are resolved, there will be an appeals process. The new addresses likely will not launch until next year.

It remains to be seen whether these new domain extensions will become popular. Some companies may be able to capitalize on the marketing opportunities presented by the new TLD’s and other generic TLD’s that could become much more common. In any event, domain names are surely going to be more creative starting very soon.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

Retail Law Conference 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Retail Law Conference:

at the Westin Galleria in Dallas, Texas

November 7-9, 2012

This event is the perfect opportunity to discuss the latest issues affecting the retail industry while obtaining important continuing legal education (CLE) credits.

Open to retail and consumer product general counsel, senior legal executives and in-house attorneys and their teams, the exceptional dialogue presented at this conference will help your organization navigate the current legal landscape of the industry.