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