Tag: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Five Key Takeaways From ICANN 50 in London

Katten Muchin Law Firm

The 50th Meeting of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) took place in London from June 22–26. This marked the first time that an ICANN meeting has been held in London, and also resulted in the largest attendance record for an ICANN meeting, with more than 3,300 individuals registered in attendance. Despite what could be characterized as organized chaos on the ground during the meeting, the following five topics and takeaways began to emerge for brand owners and new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applicants—topics which have only continued to blossom and garner further attention in month following the formal conclusion of the meeting.

1. Geographic Terms Trump Trademarks, According to the Argentina Proposal

In essence, the Argentina proposal seeks to block at all levels of the domain name system, “terms with national, cultural, geographic and religious significance,”; including “regions of countries, regions of continents, sub-regions of countries, rivers [and] mountains, among others …”; subject to registration through relevant national approval. The proposal adopts a highly aggressive posture toward inevitable conflicts between natural, cultural, geographic and religious terms on the one hand and trademarks on the other hand, no doubt in response to ongoing disputes within ICANN over the .AMAZON and .PATAGONIA new gTLD applications.

Contrary to the principle of freedom of use of geographic names, allowing private companies to register geographic names as part of gTLDs [sic] strings creates a high risk for these names to be captured by companies that want to use them to reinforce their brand strategy or profit from the meaning of these names, limiting the possibility of utilizing them in the public interest of the affected communities.

See GAC Meeting: Briefing to ICANN Community – Protection of Geographic Names in gTLDs (June 25, 2014).

Although the national, cultural, geographic and religious terms contemplated are clearly distinct from geographical indications, such as BORDEAUX, FETA or DARJEELING, the two have been conflated and the Argentina proposal has raised similar ire from nations vehemently opposing the .WINE and .VIN new gTLD applications within the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Accordingly, based on serious concerns within the GAC that the Argentina proposal is not rooted in international legal norms, that it hinges upon impractical and ad hoc terminology lists, and that it fails to grasp the purpose or intent of exclusivity pursuant to national trademark legislation, the GAC agreed to take this discussion out from behind closed doors and into a more public forum, via a GAC project team.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to question and ultimately oppose the Argentina proposal by weighing in on project team deliberations leading up to ICANN 51 in Los Angeles in October. Indeed, ever-expanding blocks will certainly hamper registry growth and harm contracted parties. Most importantly, myriad companies, and even third-party legitimate users, may ultimately find their famous brands and desired strings wholly excluded from the domain name system.

2. Conflicts Addressed Between Trademark Sunrise Protection and the Domain Name Collision Mitigation Framework

To date, ICANN’s domain name collision mitigation framework has failed to explicitly account for mandatory rights protection mechanisms, such as trademark sunrise and claims periods. Thus, many famous brands experienced frustration leading up to the London meeting, particularly because certain registry operators felt disinclined to allocate names corresponding with famous trademarks during sunrise periods, and instead held them as reserved names on collision block lists—a practice technically permitted within the name collision mitigation framework and Registry Agreement.

In the closing moments of the London meeting, ICANN shocked both the trademark and registry communities when it announced that ICANN would not require collision block list names to be allocated during sunrise periods, and if collision block list names were ever released for registration down the road, then only a 90-day claims period would apply, rather than any sunrise period. Both brand owners and registry operators disagreed with this announcement. Specifically, sunrise allocation stands as the clear preference for brand owners, given the choice between sunrise protection and mere claims notifications. In addition, registry and registrar systems would require substantial and costly retooling in order to ensure adequate claims notices are delivered to registrants beyond original claims periods.

Accordingly, in the wake of ICANN 50, the Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and Business Constituency (BC) all coalesced around a compromise counter proposal, based on the novel set of circumstances created by name collisions and mitigation measures. The compromise proposal prescribed a 30-day period for collision block list names to serve as the functional equivalent to the trademark sunrise period. In addition, the compromise proposal removed the additional 90-day claims period for collision block list names. See Application of Rights Protection Mechanism to Name Collision Block Lists(July 17, 2014). The New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) within the ICANN Board of Directors stands poised to approve the domain name collision mitigation framework accounting for the compromise counter proposal.

3. The Circumvention of Rights Protection Mechanisms Has Reached a Boiling Point

ICANN leadership has increasingly emphasized its need for specific details in response to complaints from commercial stakeholders regarding the circumvention of intellectual property rights protection mechanisms in new gTLDs. In response, the Business Constituency and the International Trademark Association (INTA) continue to gather specific evidence, screen grabs and industry news coverage expanding upon the ways in which certain registry operators and registrars have skirted the letter and spirit of new gTLD rights protection mechanisms. Some overarching categories of abuse examined to date include inter alia:

  • preregistration offers or allocation of domain names prior to trademark sunrise and devoid claims notifications;
  • extortionate premium names programs or sunrise registration pricing covering famous trademarks;
  • incorrect claims notices integrated with advertisements; and
  • bulk premium name warehousing with registry affiliates.

Indeed, industry news coverage has already flagged a number of these practices in the public arena. See e.g., Domain Incite, GoDaddy Risking Oscars Wrath With .BUZZ Premium Domains (March 7, 2014); Domain Incite, ICANN Smacks New gTLDs For Pre-Sunrise Auctions (June 18, 2014). The goal for commercial stakeholders and INTA will be to educate ICANN on the abusive practices brand owners are encountering in the marketplace, and also demand remedial action, despite the laisse faire approach to pricing taken by ICANN in the past, and also in dealings with mere applicants who have not yet executed a Registry Agreement.

4. Improvements  for a Second Application Round Are Already Under Formation and Consideration

While in London, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council unanimously passed a motion that: created a discussion group to exchange experiences gained in the 2012 new gTLD application round and identify topics for further study and policy development; solicited subject matter input from the ICANN Board of Directors; and requested a timetable from ICANN staff for the next application round, as well as a status report on pending studies evaluating the 2012 new gTLD application round. Concurrently, the New TLD Applicant Group (NTAG) held a public session in London dedicated to new gTLD program lessons and potential improvements. Commentators generally agreed on the necessity for “a defined and predictable process across the board that works for all applicant categories.”; More pointedly, intellectual property representatives advocated:

  • regulations governing premium names programs and trademark sunrise periods;
  • completely redrafted objection procedures, with the exception of the legal rights objections;
  • affirmations requiring that all domain names be subject to trademark sunrise periods; and
  • protected marks lists, similar to Donuts’ DPML model but less expensive, across all new gTLDs.

Brand owners, prospective applicants in the second round, as well as prospective objectors, are all well-advised to participate in this ongoing discussion, which will no doubt contribute to share guidelines for future new gTLD delegations.

5. ICANN Accountability Has Taken Center Stage in the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Transition

Community discussions to date concerning the IANA transition have concerned the process to transition IANA stewardship, and now increasingly, enhancing accountability to the community. The accountability concerned addresses the absence of the historical contractual relationship between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce (DOC)—more specifically, the theoretical possibility that the DOC could terminate its IANA contract with ICANN to renegotiate terms or engage some other qualified entity. As it stands, accountability generally already exists within ICANN in a multifaceted way, including inter alia:

  • overarching accountability and transparency commitments in the bylaws;
  • well-documented relationships with contracted parties;
  • periodic structural and effectiveness reviews mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments;
  • bylaws-mandated accountability mechanisms, namely the Ombudsman, Reconsideration Requests, and Independent Review Panels;
  • operational information on finances, metrics and performance;
  • rigorous selection processes for ICANN Board members;
  • publication of board resolutions, minutes, and statements of interest; and
  • United States rule of law as a Californian not-for-profit corporation.

In addition to exchanging ideas about improving upon this existing accountability framework, the community in London debated philosophical considerations behind accountability itself. From the debate, one message has been made loud and clear, as recently reaffirmed by U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling, the “important accountability issue will and should be addressed before any transition takes place.”; See U.S. NTIA, Keynote Address By Assistant Secretary Strickling At the American Enterprise Institute (July 22, 2014). In other words, to place the matter in perspective, the IANA transition presents a unique opportunity with unprecedented pressure on ICANN to ensure its accountability framework and mechanisms work for the community—that they are cost effective, expeditious and efficient, while according due process to parties negatively affected by the actions or inactions made by ICANN.

ARTICLE BY

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Of:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Protect Your Trademark Online: Global Trademark Clearinghouse to Begin Accepting Submissions

The National Law Review recently published an article by Karen Artz Ash, Bret J. Danow, Roger P. Furey, Doron S. Goldstein, Peter J. Riebling, and David B. Sherman of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP regarding Trademarks and the Global Clearinghouse:

Katten Muchin

 

On March 26, 2013, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will begin to allow trademark owners to submit their marks for inclusion in a newly created Trademark Clearinghouse, which is intended to serve as a single centralized database of verified information that will enable trademark holders throughout the world to better protect their rights on the Internet. This follow-up to “New Generic Top-Level Domain Names: What Brand Owners Need to Know” (June 15, 2012) introduces brand owners (and their licensees, assignees and agents) to several key elements of the Trademark Clearinghouse submission process, and describes the primary benefits that the Trademark Clearinghouse promises to provide to trademark rights holders.

Background

ICANN, the private nonprofit corporation that manages most top-level domains (TLDs) and IP addresses, developed the Trademark Clearinghouse (in connection with Deloitte and IBM) as part of its new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program. Generally speaking, the New gTLD Program allows any legal entity to file an application to create a new gTLD—the general domain name address extensions that come after the last dot (such as .com, .net., .org)—and, as a result, has the potential to significantly expand the existing Internet infrastructure by increasing the number of gTLDs to an almost unlimited amount (and simultaneously expanding the potential for online trademark infringement). Amid this expansion, the Trademark Clearinghouse was created to protect trademark rights holders by permitting them to more easily register second-level domain names under new gTLDs (e.g., YOURNAME.example), and to allow gTLD operators and registries to better review and assess trademark claims.

The Submission Process

The Trademark Clearinghouse will initially accept and verify for registration (1) nationally or regionally (i.e., multi-nationally) registered trademarks; (2) court-validated marks; and (3) marks protected by statute or treaty. Trademarks that are the subjects of pending applications or are inactive or invalid may not be registered.

Although the specific type of information and documentation required to verify a trademark record will vary depending on the type of mark, the Trademark Clearinghouse will generally require trademark rights holders to submit information regarding the mark itself, details about any applicable registration, court reference numbers or other documentation evidencing rights, the goods and/or services covered and the corresponding Nice classification(s), the country(ies) in which the mark is protected, the name and contact information of the trademark rights holder, and, for purposes of obtaining applicable Sunrise Services, certain verification of proof of use of the mark, which may include a signed declaration and specimen(s) of trademark use (e.g., labels, tags, containers, advertising and marketing materials). All trademark submissions will be subject to verification by Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services.

This verified trademark data will support the two primary benefits that the Trademark Clearinghouse promises to provide to trademark rights holders: Sunrise Services and “Trademark Claims” for all new gTLDs. The cost charged by ICANN for making a submission to the Trademark Clearinghouse will vary from US$95 to US$150 per year for a single mark, with discounted fees available to trademark rights holders who seek registration for three years (US$435) or five years (US$725). The Trademark Clearinghouse’s submission guidelines and basic fee structure are available for download at its official website.

Sunrise Services

By registering a trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse, a trademark rights holder will be permitted to register second-level domain names under new gTLDs (e.g., YOURNAME.example) during a “Sunrise” period of at least thirty (30) days before registration of such names is made available to the general public. All new gTLD applicants are subject to this mandatory “Sunrise” period after the registration of the new gTLD with a registry. Access to “Sunrise” registration will provide trademark rights holders with a relatively low-cost means by which to obtain some level of control of, and some ability to safeguard, second-level domain names comprised of their trademarks.

Trademark Claims

Registering a trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse will also entitle a rights holder to a “Trademark Claims” service following the “Sunrise” period. This “Trademark Claims” service will extend for at least the first sixty (60) days after a new gTLD is open for registration with the general public. At the outset, the “Trademark Claims” service will provide a warning of potential infringement to any third party attempting to register a domain name that matches a trademark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. In the event that the third party proceeds to register the domain name despite such a notice, the “Trademark Claims” service would send an automated notification to the trademark holder alerting it to the potential infringement. Although the Trademark Clearinghouse will not bar registration of the potentially infringing domain name, the “Trademark Claims” notice will expeditiously inform the rights holder and enable it to consider whether to take action.

As a practical matter, the “Trademark Claims” service will only identify identical matches to eligible trademarks. In other words, “Trademark Claims” notices will only be generated if the domain name label consists of the complete and identical textual elements of the trademark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. As a result, even a domain name containing a plural version of the mark would not be considered an identical match. Typos and “trademark + generic term” domain name labels also would not be considered identical matches. To the extent a trademark contains any special character that cannot be represented in a domain name, e.g., “@” or “!,” such character may be either omitted, replaced by hyphens, or spelled out with appropriate words of the official language(s) of the country/jurisdiction in which the mark is protected. Accordingly, if a trademark rights holder is interested in obtaining additional protection against the use and registration of infringing domain names, it may wish to work with legal counsel and use a private domain name watching service.

Conclusion

The launch of the Trademark Clearinghouse marks a phase of ICANN’s New gTLD Program that would appear to be particularly significant to brand owners and licensees. In view of the numerous ways in which the New gTLD Program promises to alter the existing Internet infrastructure, trademark rights holders may wish to consider the benefits of early registration with the Trademark Clearinghouse and work with counsel to develop other cost-effective strategies to protect their trademarks and other valuable intellectual property rights.

©2013 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

New Domain Name Registry Application Period Now Open Though Critics Urge Delay

An article by Kathleen E. Blouin, Lee J. Eulgen, Antony J. McShane, Katherine Dennis Nye and Sarah E. Smith of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP regarding Domain Name Applications was recently in The National Law Review:

On Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began accepting applications from private- and public-sector entities and organizations to obtain nearly any combination of words as their own generic top-level domain name (gTLD) registry. ICANN will only accept applications for new gTLD registries for a 90-day period, concluding on April 12, 2012. The plan will drastically increase the number of available gTLDs from the currently available 22 gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net. and .org) to potentially thousands of gTLDs (e.g., .clothing, .sports, or .yourbrand). With the opening of the application period, public and private sector outcry and dissent concerning the program has started to bubble up to mainstream consciousness.

In particular, the U.S. Department of Commerce has been reviewing the pending expansion after recently obtaining input from numerous sectors of industry regarding the potential shortcomings of the program. In November 2011, an alliance of 87 business groups, organizations and companies wrote a letter to Commerce Secretary John Bryson requesting that the Department urge ICANN to postpone the opening of the gTLD expansion application period. In light of record high levels of domain name dispute filings in 2010, the coalition believes that ICANN should delay implementing the expansion until it can confidently demonstrate that the plan will enhance consumer trust, boost Internet security, create economic benefits across many sectors and show that the benefits outweigh the costs of the expansion. The coalition is led by the Association of National Advertisers and the letter’s signatories include the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

In addition, last month, U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, along with Representative Howard Berman, ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Department of Commerce and expressed serious concerns about the dramatic expansion of gTLDs and urged the Department to encourage ICANN to undertake additional evaluation and review before initiating the robust expansion. They relayed concerns that brand owners will be forced to assume significant legal expenses to monitor and protect their trademarks and to obtain defensive registrations in light of an unprecedented number of new top-level domain names. The Representatives argued that consumers will be harmed as many of the legal expenses will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In addition, they are concerned that, as a result of the expansion, counterfeiting and piracy rates will continue to rise. They encouraged the Department of Commerce to delay the rollout until a sufficient analysis and evaluation is conducted, and until the Department is satisfied the benefits of the rollout exceed the costs and risks to consumers and businesses and to Internet safety and security.

Four commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also sent a letter to ICANN in December urging the delay of the expansion and voicing consumer protection concerns regarding the new gTLDs. The FTC reminded ICANN that ICANN planned to ensure that consumer protection and malicious abuse issues would be adequately addressed. The FTC is particularly worried that the rapid and large-scale expansion will lead to a significant rise in the use of false Whois (domain name ownership) information by domain name registrants, slowing down the FTC’s ability to identify and locate individuals behind fraudulent or counterfeit Web sites. The FTC has proposed a few immediate steps, including the implementation of a gTLD pilot program that would substantially reduce the number of gTLDs accepted in the first application round, and would require ICANN to hire additional compliance staff and impose registrant verification requirements.

Then three weeks ago, just before the Jan. 12 opening of the ICANN application process, a Commerce Department official, Lawrence Strickling, wrote to ICANN regarding some of these concerns. In his letter, Mr. Strickling recognized that the expansion has come after years of preparation and commentary from many stakeholders. However, Mr. Strickling stated that after meeting with industry stakeholders, there is tremendous concern about the expansion that could jeopardize its success. The Commerce Department requested that ICANN take three steps. First, develop a strategy to minimize defensive registrations so that a large number of organizations and entities, concerned about cybersquatting, do not feel forced to obtain defensive gTLD registries (e.g., .theirbrands) without any interest in actually operating a registry. Second, determine whether there is a need to phase in new gTLDs after the application window closes (on April 12th) and evaluate whether additional protection measures are necessary. And, third, better engage with and educate stakeholders as to the purpose and scope of the domain name expansion and available protective resources.

© 2012 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.