domain name rights protection mechanisms & icann...
TRANSCRIPT
Domain Name Rights Protection Mechanisms
& ICANN DevelopmentsOpportunities and Risks of RPMs, Sunrise and Trademark Claims Services
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2019
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Paul D. McGrady, Jr., Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Chicago
Todd D. Williams, Assistant General Counsel, Turner Broadcasting System, Atlanta
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-866-258-2056 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can address
the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your
participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance
Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email
that you will receive immediately following the program.
For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926
ext. 2.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Program Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Domain Name Rights Protection
Mechanisms & ICANN Developments
Todd D. Williams
Assistant General Counsel
P: 404-827-2234
Paul D. McGrady / Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
[email protected] • Cell: 312.882.5020
Today, we will dive into the Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) below:
• UDRP
• URS
• Nexus Dispute Policies
• Use Based Dispute Policies
• Sunrise
• Claims
• UDRP and UDRP-like Policies for ccTLDs
Following that, we will take a look at the outcomes from the most
recent ICANN meeting in Kobe and look ahead to this month’s
meeting in Marrakech.
6
Burden of Proof
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in
circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another.
In accordance with that objective, a complainant under the UDRP initially has the burden to assert
that (1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has
rights; (2) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; (3) the domain
name was registered in bad faith; and (4) the domain name has been used in bad faith.
As explained in Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd.,“The threshold for making
such a showing is quite low, since it is difficult to produce evidence to support a negative statement … . These unsupported assertions, though sparse, are sufficient to make a prima facie showing in regard to the legitimacy element.” WIPO panelists have indicated the same,
especially in relationship to the burden associated with proving Complainant’s rights to a mark that is
confusingly similar to the domain name in dispute.
Once a prima facie case has been set forth, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to refute the
case.
1-2 McGrady on Domain Names § 2.100 (2015)
UDRP
7
The UDRP has also been adopted by certain managers of country code Top Level Domains
(ccTLDs).
1-2 McGrady on Domain Names § 2.100 (2015)
To date, there are around 50 such ccTLDs.
Other ICANN Approved Dispute Policies
In addition to the UDRP, some of these gTLDs are also subject to other ICANN-adopted
dispute policies. For example, the <.biz> domain name is subject to the RDRP. Counsel
should review the relevant individual chapter for the gTLD in question.
1-2 McGrady on Domain Names § 2.100 (2015)
Importantly this Policy does not require a showing of bad faith.
Voluntary Adoption of the UDRP by ccTLDs
8
Non-ICANN, UDRP-like Dispute Policies for ccTLDs
ccTLD registries are free to adopt, or not adopt, dispute policies as they see fit. Notable non-
adopters are Germany (.de) and Russia (.ru and .su). The .us ccTLD has two informal
dispute policies. One is similar to the UDRP and one is not.
The usDRP is a UDRP-like policy. There are two primary, but important, differences between
the UDRP and the usDRP. These are (1) the relaxation of the bad faith requirement, which
under the usDRP is bad faith registration OR bad faith use (the UDRP requires both bad faith
registration and bad faith use); and (2) the addition of a fourth defense, namely that the
registrant owns or is the “beneficiary” of a trademark which corresponds exactly to the domain
name in dispute.
2-194 McGrady on Domain Names § 194.06 (2015)
9
Un-UDRP-like ccTLD Dispute Polices.
The second .us ccTLD dispute policy is the usNDP.
The usNDP was implemented to allow a party to pursue a complaint for cancellation against a registrant
which it believes has not complied with the Nexus requirements. The complainant need not show rights to
the domain name nor bad faith on the part of the registrant. In order to obtain cancellation, a complainant
must allege (and the respondent must fail to rebut) one of the following claims about the registrant:
i. You are not (a) a United States citizen, (b) a permanent resident of the United States of America or any of
its possessions or territories, or (c) primarily domiciled in the United States of America or any of its
possessions; or
ii. You are not a United States entity or organization that is (a) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S.
states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or territories, or (b) organized or
otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or
any of its possessions or territories (including a federal, state, or local government of the United States or a
political subdivision thereof, and non-commercial organizations based in the United States); or
iii. You are not a foreign entity (including an individual) or organization that has a bona fide presence in the
United States of America. In order to have a “bona fide presence”, you must have real and substantial lawful
connections with, or lawful activities in, the United States of America.
2-194 McGrady on Domain Names § 194.06 (2015)
10
Cautionary Note When Registering ccTLDs or using a ccTLD Dispute Policy:
Be Aware of Jurisdictional Issues
The usNDP is a prime example of jurisdictional rules, differing significantly from the UDRP,
appearing in dispute policies:
Unlike the UDRP which allows for a “mutual jurisdiction” in the courts where either the
registrant or registrar are located (regardless in what country such courts are located), the
usNDP restricts the “mutual jurisdictions” as follows:
Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction in the United States at the location of either (a)
the principal office of the Registrar of the domain name in question, or (b) the domain name
holder’s address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar’s Whois
database at the time a complaint is submitted to a Provider. If neither (a) or (b) are located
within the United States, then Mutual Jurisdiction shall lie in solely in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
2-194 McGrady on Domain Names § 194.06 (2015)
11
URS
The URS is, in effect, a speedier UDRP, having essentially the same elements but with
different remedies and procedural time periods. The UDRP can result in a transfer or
cancellation order, whereas the only remedy available under the URS is a suspension
order requiring the domain name to be locked down and suspended from use for the
remainder of its term or until an order on “appeal” requires otherwise. The URS process is
supposed to be several days faster than the UDRP process. The genius of the proposal is
that it does not require a brand owner to amass large portfolios of domain names that were
of value to cybersquatters but are of little or no value to the brand owner.
1-3 McGrady on Domain Names § 3.06 (2015)
Sunrise
A sunrise must be run in conjunction with the Trademarks Clearinghouse, which stores
and validates trademark data submitted by the brand owners wishing to obtain such
sunrise registrations. Once a mark is vetted by the Trademarks Clearinghouse, it is able
to serve as a basis for any Sunrise application that is based upon relevant pre-existing
trademark rights.
12
Claims Notice
A registry must offer an IP claims service during the first sixty days of the general launch of the
domain name in conjunction with a Trademarks Clearinghouse. An IP claim is triggered when an
applicant for a second-level domain name applied for a domain name that was identical to a
trademark found in the Trademarks Clearinghouse (which validates mark and gathers evidence of
their current use). A notice is sent to the applicant prior to registration, and that applicant must
then instruct its registrar to proceed even though it has been placed on notice of the preexisting
right. The brand owner would get notice of the registration but will have no notice prior to the
registration’s finalization. This process should provide some argument by the brand owner as to
notice and bad faith, should a dispute develop.
1-3 McGrady on Domain Names § 3.06 (2015)
13
RPM Reform
The Sunrise and Claims Notice RPMs are currently the subject of Phase 1 of the RPM PDP at
ICANN. A final report is due in April 2020 and there will be public comment opportunities leading
up to it. The UDRP and URS will be the subject of Phase 2. Phase 2 work should begin shortly
after Phase 1 is completed next year. Improvements to the UDRP that brand owners may wish to
seek will be on the table. The two most important are:
“Or” Instead of “And.” Since the UDRP arrived on the scene, several ccTLD policies have
been implemented by registries which parallel, in significant respects, the language of the UDRP.
What most of these more modern policies have in common, however, is their divergence from the
UDRP when it comes to what kind of bad faith must be proven…Most of the more modern policies
allow for a transfer decision in the event that the domain name was either registered in bad faith
OR used in bad faith. The UDRP requires both registration AND use in bad faith. This requirement
has lead to unfortunate decisions where the registrant was clearly using the domain name in bad
faith but the UDRP was powerless to correct the injustice. The UDRP should be amended to
replace “and” with “or.”
Loser Pays. Should the respondent choose to defend, he should have to deposit the amount of
the arbitrator’s filing fees, which complainant would have already paid, with the provider. Should
the provider find for the complainant, the complainant’s fee would be refunded, and the provider
would keep the respondent’s payment. If, however, the panelist finds for the respondent, the
provider will keep the complainant’s fee and refund the respondent’s payment.
1-2 McGrady on Domain Names § 2.111 (2015)
14
ICANN 64 UPDATE
Kobe, Japan
March 9-14, 2019
15
GDPR/WHOIS/EPDP(Background)
• Various efforts to reform WHOIS have been ongoing at ICANN for years. But the last year(since May 2018) has seen rapid changes to WHOIS in response to the EU’s General DataProtection Regulation (“GDPR”).
• On May 17, 2018 ICANN adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data(“Temp Spec”) to replace certain requirements from the RA and RAA in response to theGDPR and to provide an interim model while a more permanent model was developed.
• To develop that permanent model, in July 2019 ICANN initiated an Expedited PolicyDevelopment Process (“EPDP”).
• The EPDP team published an Initial Report on the first phase of its work in November2018, and submitted its final report on that first phase (the “Phase One Report”) to ICANNin February 2019.
• On March 4, 2019 the ICANN GNSO Council voted to approve the policy recommendationsin the Phase One Report and submit that report to the ICANN Board.
• The ICANN Board adopted the recommendations (except for portions of two) from thePhase One Report during its meeting on May 15, 2019. The EPDP is now in the secondphase of its work, which will focus on, among other issues, a system for standardizedaccess to non-public WHOIS data.
16
GDPR/WHOIS/EPDP(ICANN 64)
• Meeting fell during a sort-of “half time” between Phase 1 andPhase 2 of the EPDP.
• Post hoc discussions around Phase 1 Report and GNSOCouncil’s vote (week prior).
• Planning discussions around procedure/process for Phase 2:who will lead EPDP for Phase 2, who will participate in EPDPfor Phase 2, timing, deliverables, issues to be addressed, etc.
• Sessions on the “Draft Technical Model for Access to Non-Public Registration Data” from ICANN's Technical StudyGroup on Access to Non-Public Registration Data (“TSG”).
• ICANN 64 GAC Communique.
• Joint GAC-ALAC Statement on EPDP.
17
18
RPM WG(Background)
• Several new rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”)were introduced in connection with the rollout of newgTLDs in 2012.
• As discussed, these included the Uniform RapidSuspension System (“URS”); the TrademarkClearinghouse (“TMCH”) and its “Sunrise” and“Claims”; and the Post-Delegation DisputeResolution Procedure (“PDDRP”).
• In 2016 ICANN launched a policy-developmentprocess to review those new RPMs and the long-standing Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionPolicy (“UDRP”).
19
RPM WG(ICANN 64)
Sunrise:▪ Generally agreed that matching rules for Sunrise should remain the same
(although “truncated” versions of marks where the full mark incorporates the TLD
itself may need to be further considered).
▪ Generally agreed that use of invalid SMD files is not a prevalent problem.
Claims:▪ Generally agreed that Claims did not need major overhaul.
▪ Generally agreed that Claims notices should be sent before completion of a
registration (not after).
20
SubPro and Geos(Background)
• New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (“SubPro”) has
been evaluating possible changes to new gTLD policy
for future new gTLD expansions.
• SubPro issued its Initial Report in July 2018 and a
Supplemental Initial Report in October 2018.
• Work Track 5 is a sub-team of the SubPro focused
specifically on the rules and requirements concerning the
use of terms with geographical significance as future
new gTLDs.
• Work Track 5 issued its own Supplemental Report in
December 2018.
21
SubPro and Geos(ICANN 64)
• SubPro discussed several topics it had identified aspotentially warranting closure, based on publiccomments received on its Initial Report andSupplemental Initial Report.
• Work Track 5 spent its time reviewing, analyzing, anddebating public comments received on its Initial Report.
• One issue: what is going to count as a “geographicname” (e.g., translations, three-letter names)?
• Post-ICANN 64 “Epilogue”: a May 15th ICANN BoardResolution directed ICANN to “continue processing ofthe .AMAZON applications according to the policies andprocedures of the New gTLD Program.”
22
Looking Ahead
23