Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.


Document Sample
FICPI_and_Domain_Names.1 Powered By Docstoc

                                    FICPI & Domain Names

Why are Domain Name issues important for FICPI?
The global network of networks, more commonly known as the Internet, can be a fantastic
tool for turning a local business into an international success. However, doing business over
the Internet presents a number of legal challenges and risks.
As the Internet has developed and evolved, the number of registered domain names has
increased exponentially. This, in turn, has led to an increased demand for legal advice,
particularly in respect of the relationship between domain names and trademarks.
Between 1991 – 1997, the number of domain registrations underwent extreme growth of
between 850% and 1600% per year. Current growth figures are a bit more modest, but still
show a steady rate of more than 25% a year. The number of active domain name
registrations under .com alone was (as of October 10, 2010) 90,215,801, with a daily growth
of 91 3951. This can be compared to the total number of trademark applications filed with the
USPTO in 20092: 352,051.
Currently, the fact is that a first action for a company planning to introduce a new trademark
(or company name) is to check and secure the corresponding domain name under one or
several top level domains. This is often done in advance of any trademark search or
The challenges for the IP community are to fight domain piracy, cybersquatters,
typosquatters, bad faith domainers and others trying to take advantage of the goodwill of
others’ marks or to identify themselves as the rightholder in question in order to gain
information from Internet users.
When dealing with the first issue - classical trademark infringement by domain names - it is
important (as rightly observed by FICPI in the past) to make sure that there is easy access to
information on the identity of the domain name holder (WHOIS), and that there is a legal
process which is fast, cost-effective and accurate, whether it is performed by courts (as in
Germany) or by an alternative dispute resolution process (like the UDRP). WIPO, one of four
ICANN accredited dispute resolution providers, has handled almost 19 000 cases since
1999, with an average yearly number of more than 2 000 (2 156 in 2007, 2 329 in 2008 and
2 107 in 2009).

One problem today is that the UDRP and other similar dispute resolution policies only deal
with infringements at the so called second level (the part to the left of the top level domain),
for example a bad faith registered and used domain name With new top level
domains to be introduced, we may well see infringements using a combination of top level
and second level domains, such as ya.hoo, fic.pi or cocac.ola.

    According to statistics from DomainTools

2 FY 2009 / USPTO
                                               ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

Other examples of bad faith use of trademarks on the Internet are the use of a competitor’s
trademarks as metatags, black lettering, keyword advertising (such as Google’s AdWords)
and Phishing.

Phishing attacks use social engineering and technical subterfuge to steal consumers'
personal identity, data, and financial account credentials. Social engineering schemes use
spoofed emails to lead consumers to counterfeit websites designed to trick recipients into
divulging financial data such as credit card numbers, account usernames, passwords, and
social security numbers. Both false e-mail addresses and the websites use domain names to
convince recipients that they have come to the original site or will respond to the right holder.

Keeping in mind that a primary concern of IP attorneys is to protect their client’s trademark
rights on the Internet, it is important for FICPI to continue to play an active role in the ICANN
work and to co-operate within IPC, with WIPO and with others, whatever the future legal
challenges may be.

FICPI statements
FICPI has been, and continues to be, heavily involved in respect of domain name and
Internet related issues that are important for trademark owners. Here are some examples of
statements and positions made or taken by FICPI over the years:
       “Although it will take time, some immediate efforts should be made to get
       talks going on an international treaty or co-operative arrangement for the
       purpose of standardizing rules concerning Internet access, Internet providers,
       conditions for applications for domain names, and provisions for enforcement
       and particularly for reciprocal enforcement between jurisdictions. It is
       imperative that these be looked at quickly and that in coming up with any
       treaty, that the Internet community and its needs be considered as carefully
       as those of the legal and intellectual property community, lest the rules be so
       skewed in favour of intellectual property owners, that the Internet community
       simply circumvents them, which remains a distinct possibility3.”
FICPI on Dispute Resolution:
       “FICPI strongly supports the initiatives of WIPO and ICANN in relation to the
       settlement of disputes… The use of domain names should not be allowed to
       dilute the rights of trade mark owners4.”
       “The second issue of interest to the stakeholder group consisting of
       trademark owners, who are of course businesses many of whom rely
       extensively and increasingly on the Internet, is that of Dispute Resolution.
       The current UDRP generally functions well in meeting the needs of domain
       name holders and trademark owners. It must be recognized that those two
       groups are not mutually exclusive but that trademark owners and domain

3 Trademarks and Internet Domain Names - Recommendations from FICPI to WIPO, November 5,
1997 – Jonathan Cohen / Helmut Sonn

4 FICPI Australia, September 15, 2000

                                              ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

       name holders are very often one and the same. FICPI members are
       responsible for representation of both groups. However, we are of the view
       that cautious and minor changes that do not erode the fundamental premises
       and compromises upon which the UDRP was based should now be
       considered. We also advocate all means through which ccTLD dispute
       resolution mechanisms based on those same fundamentals are implemented
       and compliance assured.
       “With respect to the current UDRP, we believe it is time to consider very
       minor changes to the “bad faith” requirement which would allow challenges to
       succeed in instances wherein there has been either use or registration in bad
       faith. This would improve the fairness of the current requirement for use and
       registration in bad faith. Further means of enhancing fairness would be to
       ensure that protections for due process of law exist to a greater extent and to
       ensure that evidentiary requirements are more explicit.
       “We do not advocate, as we have advised ICANN previously, expansion of
       the UDRP to include non-trademark identifiers. Any changes to the UDRP
       must remain consistent with the fundamental principles upon which the
       UDRP was based. Applying the procedure to identifiers that do not enjoy
       uniform legal protection across most or all countries and removing the right to
       bring action in national courts would be completely inconsistent with UDRP
The availability of accurate identity and contact information of domain name holders is
essential for effective intellectual property rights enforcement. FICPI urges ICANN,
Registrars and others tasked with registering domain names to provide up-to-date and
accurate identity (“WHOIS”) information to those with a legitimate need to obtain such
information, particularly those pursuing infringement of intellectual property rights.6
       “One of the primary reasons why accurate WHOIS information is essential is
       to effect legal service on a domain name owner. We suggest that there are
       ways to ensure service is possible in spite of inaccurate contact information.
       Recognizing that domain names are “a right” carrying with them some
       “responsibility”, we would encourage ICANN to consider, for example, a
       policy whereby service on an “official” body such as ICANN is possible in
       instances wherein contact information is clearly inaccurate rendering service
       on the domain name owner impossible. The official body could maintain a
       database of these communications with publication of the information
       deemed the legal equivalent to actual receipt by the domain name holder.
       “We also advocate a system whereby failure to provide accurate information
       results in suspension and subsequent loss of the domain name in question.
       If such consequences were possible we believe that the problem of

5 To ICANN from FICPI/Coleen Morrison, as Chair of CET1, no date found

6 FICPI RESOLUTION 1, World congress in Paris 2006

                                             ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

       inaccurate, outdated or non-functional contact information would disappear.
       Such a policy would ideally be applicable across all top level domains
       including ccTLDs.
       “Regardless of what method is used to ensure businesses and trademark
       owners are able to determine the identity and location of an entity behind a
       domain name, we support and encourage ICANN efforts to implement
       compliance programs to ensure that the necessary standards of performance
       are met by registries and registrars. Rules or contractual obligations are not
       useful unless they are enforceable and enforced.”7
       “While recognizing the strong emerging concern as to privacy, FICPI urges
       that in the case of each new TLD there be a renewed effort to ensure that full
       and accurate information is obtained from each domain name holder. The
       foregoing is necessary to ensure that the sTLD WHOIS database is a reliable
       source of information for given authorized access. The importance of
       accurate and reliable WHOIS information is particularly critical in respect of
       the less well defined proposed sponsored TLDs since the potential great
       diversity of participants could mean less scrutiny as to whether a domain
       name holder has met the requirements established by the particular group.
       “We suggest it would be appropriate to include contractual terms to deal with
       the requisite flexibility attributable to differing privacy legislation in various
       jurisdictions. It has been suggested that perhaps different "classes" of
       persons should have different levels of access to WHOIS information with
       advertisers at the "low" end, or perhaps even restricted entirely. This should
       serve to help stem the tide of spam which is having an increasing impact on
       business in terms of resources required to deal with unwanted and
       unrequested commercial e-mail. We ask the Board to remain mindful of the
       fact that Intellectual Property Agents have a legitimate need to access
       accurate WHOIS information to defend IP rights. Perhaps a method of
       establishing "legitimate interest" that is simple and reasonably foolproof
       should be derived so that IP practitioners are able to get the info they need
       quickly. We believe that it is possible to achieve an appropriate balance in
       respecting privacy while at the same time ensuring that the authorized agents
       of those whose intellectual property interests are being harmed have access
       to adequate information to enable contact of the entity responsible for the

FICPI on ICANN Organization:

       “We applaud ICANN’s proposals to ensure enhanced bottom-up consensus
       reaching and stakeholder representation through improved communication.
       We support efforts to better organize the ICANN website and to improve
       content especially relating to domain name dispute material and Whois

7 To ICANN from FICPI/Coleen Morrison, as Chair of CET1, no date found

8 Letter from Gert Schmitt-Nilson to John Jeffrey / ICANN Board, October 1, 2004

                                                ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

       information. We would very much like to see the ICANN site as the central
       location for all relevant information as currently a patchwork of information
       “With respect to the proposed organizational framework we agree that
       adequate staffing is essential to ensure that ICANN strategic priorities are
       met. ICANN has to date achieved success with a minimum of staff and we
       are hopeful that an increase will result in the ability to effect changes of the
       sort planned for the future and those identified above. One ICANN specified
       initiative we would like to see expanded is the Ombudsman program. We
       believe it would meet the needs of stakeholders were this office to be divided
       into specific topic areas so as to ensure appropriate expertise of staff. We
       advocate the use of mediation where possible and would like to know more
       about the mediation tools to be utilized by this office.”9

FICPI on Sponsored Top Level Domain domains

       “We suggest that the time has come for ICANN to commence consideration
       and study of the advisability of fixing, by contract, the jurisdictions in which a
       domain name or UDRP dispute can be appealed. For example, the country of
       the DN holder, the country of the Objector/Plaintiff or the country in which the
       alleged abuse is taking place, including the country where the Registry is
       problematic as it could lead to ''advanced" or "reverse" forum shopping. FICPI
       would of course willingly participate in any such study.
       “It is clearly a concern of all that a Sponsored TLD be representative of, and
       responsive to, the needs of a pertinent and definable group or industry
       segment. Sponsored TLDs should not be an exclusive club which is
       effectively a monopoly to be wielded to the detriment of an entity or person
       who may arguably fall within a group or for that matter wielded against the
       general Public. We believe that there is an onus upon ICANN to periodically
       monitor any sTLD with a view to ensuring that best practices are established.
       These best practices which meet requirements imposed by ICANN upon
       grant of the sTLD must continue after the domain has been established in
       order to ensure a system which is fair to all. Additionally, some sort of appeal,
       perhaps to an Ombudsman, should be available if an entity appears to meet
       established requirements but is refused a Domain in the sTLD.
       “Finally, it is essential that there be renewed efforts to design rules or
       contractual obligations of sTLDs to limit if not prevent abusive registrations.
       This issue must in our view be dealt with prior to the grant of a sponsored top
       level domain.”10

FICPI on the IRT Proposal:

9 To ICANN from FICPI/Coleen Morrison, as Chair of CET1, no date found

10 Letter from Gert Schmitt-Nilson to John Jeffrey / ICANN Board, October 1, 2004

                                               ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

       “FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly
       representative of the free profession of more than 86 countries/regions,
       supports the conclusions and proposals of the IRT Final Report.
       “The proposals are well balanced and provide important measures to protect
       not only large trademark holders, but also the rights of small and medium
       sized right holders as well as consumer rights - the latter especially through
       the IP Clearinghouse, the URS and the Thick WHOIS Model.
       “Although there may be some technical details to solve before
       implementation, it is essential that the proposals of the IRT are adopted by
       ICANN _before_ the introduction of any new TLDs.”11

FICPI on trademark protection in the new top level domains
(and a description of the proposed rights protection mechanisms)
The current (October 2010) status of RPMs (rights protection mechanisms) in ICANNs Draft
Applicant Guidebook for the new top level domains includes:

(a)    Trademark Clearinghouse
There should be a requirement for registries to recognise trademarks that are nationally or
multi-nationally registered. This may be a good solution, and it is described by ICANN as “a
central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated pertaining to the
rights of trademark holders”.
The Trademark Clearinghouse will hold a database of verified registered rights. Registry
owners must implement either a Sunrise or an IP Claims system. They can pull from the
Clearinghouse or have pushed to them lists of identical verified marks (no plurals or hyphens)
thus saving the cost of having the same records validated time and again.
As proposed by the IRT, the Clearinghouse should include trademarks registered at any
national or multi-national registry without discrimination. However, ICANN formed a Special
Trademarks Initiative (STI) team, the majority of who were not practising trade mark attorneys, and
asked them to review this proposal. Fearing gaming by speculators who obtained expedited
marks in order to participate in earlier RPMs, the STI recommended that the Clearinghouse
should exclude trademarks from countries that do not conduct a substantive review.
ICANN has not yet defined what is meant by a “substantive review”, but the latest suggestion
seems to be that all marks from either “a jurisdiction that conducts substantive examination
prior to registration” or that have been “Court or Trademark Clearinghouse validated”.
FICPI has pointed out that this will mean that all owners of Community Trademark
Registrations, as well as other countries without full official examination, will have to get a
court validation instead of just using their registered trademark.12
The Trademark Clearinghouse does not remove cost or prevent typosquatting, and not
enough is being done to prevent “deadbeat” registries.

11 Petter Rindforth to the ICANN Board, July 4, 2009

12 Petter Rindforths comments to the IPC and ICANN Board members several times, the latest at the
ICANN meeting in Munich, June 2010
                                                ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

(b)    Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)
       “To enable prompt action on disputes involving trademarks”.
This is a suggested solution that unfortunately seems to be less and less useful after every
discussion and change. The current version would be more expensive than the UDRP, there
would be no fast track for defaults, and the burden of proof would be higher than for the
UDRP, there would be no transfer of property to the winning party – instead the domain
name would be locked until the next renewal date.

FICPI, IPC, ICANN and the future
FICPI is heavily involved in the ICANN’s work, both as active members of the IPC (which
was actually initiated by the Jonathan Cohen, FICPI’s former Special Reporter for Domain
Name Issues), as well as in working groups like the IRT (Implementation Recommendation
Team – with Mr Cohen as one of the members) and other groups and teams working with
the difficult task of convincing the ICANN Board of the importance of trademark protection in
old and new top level domains.
In fact, FICPI is widely acknowledged as one of the most active IP organizations in the IPC.
However FICPI needs more volunteers to assist actively in this important work, so that all
relevant topics, meetings and groups can be monitored, and the views and interests of the
members of FICPI and their clients who are interested in trademark protection on the Internet
can be effectively represented.

Petter Rindforth
Special Reporter, Domain Names

                                            ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

                          ICANN Acronyms & Glossary

ALAC - At-Large Community
ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing
advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests of individual Internet
users (the "At-Large" community). Currently, more than 100 groups representing the views of
individual Internet users are active throughout the world.

APWG - Anti-Phishing Working Group
The Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) is the global pan-industrial and law enforcement
association focused on eliminating the fraud and identity theft that result from phishing,
pharming, and email spoofing of all types.

BC - The Commercial and Business User Constituency.
Represents business of all types - multi-nationals, medium-size companies and small
enterprises. One of the Constituency's strengths is its association membership - which
extends BC outreach directly to thousands of companies worldwide.

ccTLDs - Country Code Top Level Domains
Two letter domains, such as .uk (United Kingdom), .de (Germany), .se (Sweden) and .jp
(Japan), are called country code top level domains (ccTLDs) and correspond to a country,
territory, or other geographic location.

A proposal from the IRT. An IP Clearinghouse would be a database to support new gTLD
registries in operating cost-effective rights protection mechanism of all kinds that would not
place a heavy financial or administrative burden on trademark owners. The proposed
Clearinghouse would hold information on rights of all kinds, including both registered and
unregistered trademark rights, and would be suitable for internationalised domain names

DAG - Draft Applicant Guidebook
After years of discussion and thought, new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are being
expanded. An implementation plan is being developed with opportunities for public comment.
The plan is presented in the DAG, consisting of a series of modules, each focused on
specific topics within the application and evaluation process:

      Module 1: Introduction to the Application Process
Provides an overview of the application process, documentation requirements, and fees,\.

      Module 2: Evaluation Procedures
Describes the various reviews that occur during the evaluation process and criteria for
approval of applications

                                            ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

      Module 3: Dispute Resolution Procedures
Contains the grounds for formal objection by third parties concerning gTLD applications
submitted, and the dispute resolution procedure triggered by an objection

      Module 4: String Contention Procedures
Describes mechanisms for resolving contention when there is more than one qualified
applicant for identical or similar gTLD strings

      Module 5: Transition to Delegation
Describes the final steps required of an applicant, including execution of a registry
agreement and completion of pre-delegation tests

      Module 6: Terms and Conditions
Contains the terms and conditions applicable to all entities submitting an application

GAC - Governmental Advisory Committee
The GAC is an advisory committee comprising appointed representatives of national
governments, multi-national governmental organizations and treaty organizations, and
distinct economies. Its function is to advise the ICANN Board on matters of concern to
governments. The GAC will operate as a forum for the discussion of government interests
and concerns, including consumer interests. As an advisory committee, the GAC has no
legal authority to act for ICANN, but will report its findings and recommendations to the
ICANN Board. The Secretariat of the GAC is based at the European Commission.

GNSO - The Generic Names Supporting Organisation
The GNSO is the successor to the responsibilities of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) that relate to the generic top-level domains. The GNSO is the body of
six constituencies, as follows: the Commercial and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry
constituency, the ISP constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's
constituency, and the IP constituency (IPC).

GPML - The Globally Protected marks List
In the IRT Final Draft Report, a recommended new mechanism, the GPML, is proposed,
which will: i) prevent individuals from applying to create a new TLD that is identical or
confusingly similar to certain “globally protected mark” until the party interested in running the
TLD has gone through a not insignificant administrative process and proven "that the
applied-for TLD is not sufficiently similar (visually, aurally, and in commercial impression) as
to be likely, as a matter of probability and not mere possibility, to deceive or cause confusion
or that it otherwise has legitimate rights to use the applied-for TLD", and ii) prevent
individuals from registering domain names in a new TLD that are identical to certain 'globally
protected marks' until they prove that the "registration would be consistent with generally
accepted trademark laws; namely, that its use of the domain name would not infringe the
legal rights of the GPM owner." (IRT Final Draft Report)

gTLD - generic Top Level Domain (not associated with country code)
The current gTLDs are:

                                              ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

Aero     For the air transport industry
Arpa     Reserved exclusively to support operationally-critical infrastructural
         identifier spaces as advised by the Internet Architecture Board
Asia     For companies, organizations and individuals in the Asia-Pacific region
Biz      Business use
Cat      Catalan language / culture
Com      Commercial organizations, but unrestricted
Coop     Cooperatives
Edu      Post-secondary educational establishments
Gov      Government entities within the United States at the federal, state, and
         local levels
Info     General information
Int      International organizations established by treaty
Jobs     Employment-related sites
Mil      The U.S. military
Mobi     Sites catering to mobile devices
Museum   Museums (certain conditions apply)
Name     Families and individuals
Net      Originally for network infrastructures, now unrestricted
Org      Originally for (non-profit) organizations not clearly falling within the
         other gTLDs, now unrestricted
Pro      Certain professions
Tel      Services involving connections between the telephone network and
         the Internet
Travel   Travel agents, airlines, hoteliers, tourism bureaus, etc.

                                ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

ICANN is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for
Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic
(gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root
server system management functions. Originally, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) and other entities performed these services under U.S. Government contract. ICANN
now performs the IANA function. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to
preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving
broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to
its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. The DNS translates the domain
name you type into the corresponding IP address, and connects you to your desired website.
The DNS also enables email to function properly, so the email you send will reach the
intended recipient.

IDNs - Internationalized Domain Names
IDNs are web addresses in your own language. Many efforts are underway in the Internet
community to make domain names available in character sets other than ASCII. These
"internationalized domain name" (IDN) efforts were the subject of a 25 September 2000
resolution by the ICANN Board of Directors, in which it recognized "that it is important that
the Internet evolve to be more accessible to those who do not use the ASCII character set,"
but stressed that "the internationalization of the Internet's domain name system must be
accomplished through standards that are open, non-proprietary, and fully compatible with the
Internet's existing end-to-end model and that preserve globally unique naming in a
universally resolvable public name space."

IPC - The Intellectual Property Constituency
One of the six constituencies of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
charged with the responsibility of advising the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the
management of the domain name system. Jonathan Cohen (FICPI) was the first President of
the IPC.

The purposes of the IPC are to:

Represent the views and interests of owners of intellectual property worldwide with particular
emphasis on trademark, copyright, and related intellectual property rights and their effect and
interaction with Domain Name Systems (DNS), and to ensure that these views, including
minority views, are reflected in the recommendations made by the GNSO Council to the
ICANN Board.

More particularly, to review and raise all intellectual property matters including any
proposals, issues, policies, or otherwise, which may affect intellectual property, particularly
as it interfaces with the DNS, and to provide to the GNSO and the ICANN Board timely and
expert advice before it must make any decision or take any position thereon.

                                             ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

Members of the IPC are:
American Bar Association - Intellectual Property Law Section (ABA-IPL)
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP)
Arab Society of Intellectual Property
Asociacion Interamericana de la Propiedad Industrial (ASIPI)
Asociacion Mexicana para La Proteccion de la Propiedad Industrial (AMPPI)
Association of European Trademark Owners (MARQUES)
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
Coalition for Online Accountability (COA)
Fédération Internationale des Counseils en Propriété Industrielle (FICPI)
LES International
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC)
International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI)
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)
International Trademark Association (INTA)
Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC)
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)

IRT - Implementation Recommendation Team
Upon direction by ICANNs Board, the IPC formed an Implementation Recommendation
Team to provide possible solutions to trademark issues raised in the new Generic Top-Level
Domain (New gTLDs) implementation planning. Jonathan Cohen has been one of the
members of the IRT.

NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency
Self – explanatory.

NomCom - The ICANN Nominating Committee
The 2009 NomCom selected:
      Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors
      Three members of the At Large Advisory                  Committee        (for   the   African,
       Asia/Australia/Pacific, and Latin American regions)
      Two members of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
      One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
                                              ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

Those selected by the NomCom took their seats at the end of the 2009 ICANN Annual
Meeting, held 30 October 2009 (in Seoul, Korea).

RPM - Right Protection Mechanisms
The protection for trademarks within the new TLDs. The current version of the proposed
RPM includes (among other things) a “Trademark Clearinghouse” and a “Uniform Rapid
Suspension System”. The RPM will not only be utilized in the application process. It will be
the basis for evaluating a new Registry in three stages: pre-launch, launch, and full
operations. The core functions of the RPM are to validate existing trademarks and provide all
the important data for pre-launch claims or sunrise services.

SSAC - Security and Stability Advisory Committee

This is the ICANN President's standing committee on the security and stability of the
Internet's naming and address allocation systems. Their charter includes a focus on risk
analysis and auditing. SSAC consists of approximately 20 technical experts from industry
and academia as well as operators of Internet root servers, registrars, and TLD registries.

STI - The Special Trademarks Initiative team

A team formed by ICANN to further evaluate the IRT proposal. The majority of the STI was
not practising trade mark attorneys and saw a risk of too much trademark protection within
the upcoming new TLDs.

sTLD - Sponsored top level domains

Examples of existing sTLDs are .aero (for Members of the air transport industry), .coop
(cooperative associations), .mobi (Providers and consumers of mobile products and
services), .museum (Museums), and .travel (Travel agents, airlines, tourism bureaus, hotels,


A Sunrise period is traditionally offered before the general start of any new top level domain,
giving governmental bodies, trademark owners and other similar interested parties a
possibility to register their domain names before the general public.

UDRP - Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
All ICANN-accredited registrars follow a uniform dispute resolution policy. In disputes arising
from registrations allegedly made abusively (such as "cybersquatting" and cyberpiracy"), the
uniform policy provides an expedited administrative procedure to allow the dispute to be
resolved without the cost and delays often encountered in court litigation. In these cases, you
can invoke the administrative procedure by filing a complaint with one of the dispute-
resolution service providers.

URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System

                                             ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE

Proposed by the IRT, the URS is intended to supplement the UDRP and provide a cost-
effective and timely mechanism for brand owners to protect their trademarks in the new

“Users House”
A meeting under the ICANN meetings with all the constituencies of the GNSO who are not
contracted parties with ICANN and the members of At-Large. Participants: At-Large,
Business, Intellectual Property, Internet Service Provider, and Non-Commercial Users’

Petter Rindforth, 2010-10-15

                                         ACTING FOR THE IP PROFESSION WORLDWIDE