ICANN’s public comment forum for version four of the Draft Applicant Guidebook for new TLDs closes next week on July 21st and that date may prove to be the last opportunity for interested parties to memorialize and publicize any questions or concerns they may have with regard to the introduction of new top-level domains.
Tony Kirsch of AusRegistry has written a blog post, “A DeLorean, 88 Miles an Hour and a Fully Charged Flux Capacitor,” which is a fun read looking at the world of domain names from five years out into the future. Although the predictions may be understandably optimistic, coming from a provider of domain name registry services, the notion that we could see “approval of the final version of the Applicant Guidebook at ICANN 39 in Cartagena” as well as a “45 day registration period in early 2011,” does not appear to be overly optimistic at all.
Antony Van Couvering of Minds + Machines wrote a nice roundup of the recent ICANN meeting in Brussels called, “What the ICANN Brussels Meeting Means for New gTLDs.” At the meeting in Brussels, the ICANN Board of Directors scheduled a retreat to hash out the remaining issues in connection with the implementation of new TLDs and the piece concludes with “most indications are that ICANN’s next meeting, in early December 2010 in Cartagena, Colombia, will finally produce a starting date for new gTLDs.”
Interested parties may want to submit their comments next week, because it may be that we see a final draft later this year at the next ICANN meeting in Cartagena.
Showing posts with label new gTLD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new gTLD. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
"Discrete, Limited Rounds?" ICANN's Economic Analysis of New TLDs
Somewhat lost in the coverage of the recent ICANN meeting in Brussels was the release of "An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names" on June 16th, a copy of which is available here.
The first 10 pages, comprising the Introduction and Overview and Background sections, provide a nice overview of how we got to this point and should be mandatory reading for those how are new to the issue. The Theoretical Framework section outlines the pros and cons for the introduction of new TLDs, as well as the Department of Justice's concerns that prompted the Economic Evaluation itself. The next section consists of a survey of studies conducted by Summit Strategies, Minds + Machines, Edelman and Stahura, which makes me feel better personally to know that someone else has waded through these papers.
The final section, however, is the most useful, in the sense that suggestions are made in connection with analyzing the costs and benefits of the implementation of new TLDs. The authors conclude that analysis of domain name registration volumes, domain name resale prices, and the prevalence of domain name registrants switching to new TLDs should all be given low priority. The authors do posit, however, that the increased costs to trademark owners in connection with protecting their brands through domain name registration, monitoring and enforcement should be monitored and analyzed. The authors are also concerned with the costs to consumers due to consumer confusion and fragmentation of the Internet related to new TLDs, although that is obviously not easily measured or monitored.
Finally, the authors propose "it may be wise to continue ICANN's practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds. It is impossible to predict the costs and benefits of new gTLDs accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds, the biggest likely costs--consumer confusion and trademark protection--can be evaluated in the earlier rounds to make more accurate predictions about later rounds." That does sound wise and kudos to Michael L. Katz, Gregory L. Rosston and Theresa Sullivan for contributing to the discussion. Nevertheless, when I remotely asked the panel for "Brand Management in the Age of New gTLDs" at the ICANN meeting in Brussels the likelihood of implementing new TLDs in "discrete, limited rounds," the response was mostly chuckles.
The first 10 pages, comprising the Introduction and Overview and Background sections, provide a nice overview of how we got to this point and should be mandatory reading for those how are new to the issue. The Theoretical Framework section outlines the pros and cons for the introduction of new TLDs, as well as the Department of Justice's concerns that prompted the Economic Evaluation itself. The next section consists of a survey of studies conducted by Summit Strategies, Minds + Machines, Edelman and Stahura, which makes me feel better personally to know that someone else has waded through these papers.
The final section, however, is the most useful, in the sense that suggestions are made in connection with analyzing the costs and benefits of the implementation of new TLDs. The authors conclude that analysis of domain name registration volumes, domain name resale prices, and the prevalence of domain name registrants switching to new TLDs should all be given low priority. The authors do posit, however, that the increased costs to trademark owners in connection with protecting their brands through domain name registration, monitoring and enforcement should be monitored and analyzed. The authors are also concerned with the costs to consumers due to consumer confusion and fragmentation of the Internet related to new TLDs, although that is obviously not easily measured or monitored.
Finally, the authors propose "it may be wise to continue ICANN's practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds. It is impossible to predict the costs and benefits of new gTLDs accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds, the biggest likely costs--consumer confusion and trademark protection--can be evaluated in the earlier rounds to make more accurate predictions about later rounds." That does sound wise and kudos to Michael L. Katz, Gregory L. Rosston and Theresa Sullivan for contributing to the discussion. Nevertheless, when I remotely asked the panel for "Brand Management in the Age of New gTLDs" at the ICANN meeting in Brussels the likelihood of implementing new TLDs in "discrete, limited rounds," the response was mostly chuckles.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
ManagingIP: Why Brand Owners Need New Internet Strategies
On May 26, 2010, Managing Intellectual Property published a piece titled, "Why Brand Owners Need New Internet Strategies," in relation to the recent introduction of IDNs and the planned implementation of new TLDs. While it it possible that private-party litigation or governmental interference could slow down the implementation of new TLDs, trademark owners need to recognize that new TLDs remain on the horizon. Two of the speakers referenced in the piece even recommended that brand owners may benefit from creating a special department targeted at dealing specifically with domain name issues.
MarkMonitor Surveys Corporate Clients: Majority Undecided on New TLDs
On May 20, 2010, MarkMonitor reported the results of its corporate client survey concerning its clients' intent to register a new TLD. Based on the response of 95 survey participants, MarkMonitor found that 22% intended to apply for a new TLD, 23% do not intend to apply and the remaining 55% had not determined whether to apply for a new TLD.
ICANN's Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommends Initiation of a Policy Development Process to Investigate the Current State of the UDRP
On May 29, 2010, ICANN's Registration Abuse Policies Working Group published its Final Report with regard to domain name registration abuse to be considered by the GNSO Council.
The 14 members of the group consented unanimously to the following recommendation:
Recommendation #1:
The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the current state of the UDRP, and consider balanced revisions to address cybersquatting if appropriate. This effort should consider:
How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.
Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.
Interestingly, the 14 members of the group split evenly with regard to the second recommendation, with seven members in favor of View A and seven members in favor of View B.
View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
The 14 members of the group consented unanimously to the following recommendation:
Recommendation #1:
The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the current state of the UDRP, and consider balanced revisions to address cybersquatting if appropriate. This effort should consider:
How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process.
Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated.
Interestingly, the 14 members of the group split evenly with regard to the second recommendation, with seven members in favor of View A and seven members in favor of View B.
View A: The RAPWG recommends the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an Issues Report to investigate the appropriateness and effectiveness of how any Rights Protection Mechanisms that are developed elsewhere in the community (e.g. the New gTLD program) can be applied to the problem of cybersquatting in the current gTLD space.
View B: The initiation of such a process is premature; the effectiveness and consequences of the Rights Protection Mechanisms proposed for the new TLDs is unknown. Discussion of RPMs should continue via the New TLD program. Experience with them should be gained before considering their appropriate relation (if any) to the existing TLD space.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
INTA in Boston? Let Me Know if You Want to Meet Up
If you're going to INTA's 2010 Annual Meeting in Boston and want to set aside some time to discuss online trademark infringement and/or the implementation of new top-level domains, send me an e-mail at Ryan@KaatzLaw.com. The meeting is only three weeks away, but past experience suggests schedules fill up quickly.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
CNN Interviews ICANN Senior Director Regarding IDNs
Pursuant to CircleID, ICANN Senior Director, Tina Dam, was interviewed with regard to recent developments concerning internationalized domain names (IDNs). As was mentioned back in February, the first four IDNs approved represent top-level domains in Arabic, Russian and Cyrillic scripts, and therefore, trademark owners should take steps in the near future to determine whether to register domain names in these IDNs, particularly if they hold trademark registrations in Egypt, the Russian Federation, United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Czech Arbitration Court Issues First Class Complaint Decision
The Czech Arbitration Court recently issued what appears to be the first UDRP decision that involves a domain name dispute that takes advantage of the CAC's option for multiple complainants to file a single complaint against a single domain name registrant. The case, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. & Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA, LLC v. Errol Santos, CAC 100143 (Mar. 3, 2010), resulted from Santos' registration of the enterprisediscountcodes.com and alamodiscountcodes.com domain names on November 25, 2009. According to the decision, the "disputed domain names respectively resolve to pages with headings 'Enterprise Discount Codes' with the ENTERPRISE logo and 'ALAMO Discount Code with the ALAMO logo" and further divert Internet users to websites that offer rental car services, including both the car rental services of the complainants', as well as the car rental services of the complainants' direct competitors, which evidenced bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.
The CAC is the only domain name dispute provider that allows for the filing of class complaints, so trademark owners should at least be aware of this option in the albeit unlikely event that a similar factual scenario should arise.
The CAC is the only domain name dispute provider that allows for the filing of class complaints, so trademark owners should at least be aware of this option in the albeit unlikely event that a similar factual scenario should arise.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Revised ICANN UDRP Rules Should Result in Cheaper Filings
As of March 1st, ICANN's revised UDRP Rules no longer require hard copy filings, meaning that Complaints and Responses, including Annexes, may now only be filed electronically. While the environmental results of such a change should prove significant, the cost savings are also likely to prove substantial by reducing copying and shipping charges, particularly for those brand owners who face persistent cybersquatting.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Trademark Owners Should Plan Now for the Introduction and Implementation of New TLDs
Minds & Machines has posted a visually appealing projection of the likely ICANN time line for the introduction and implementation of new top-level domains. While delays are likely, and perhaps inevitable, trademark owners should be aware that applications for new TLDs may be expected in April of next year, with implementation of new TLDs projected for the beginning of 2012. Trademark owners must be aware of these projected deadlines and plan accordingly.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Canon Shoots for Increased Online Communication with Dot Canon TLD
Last week, Canon Inc. made an announcement that the company would seek to acquire the .canon top-level domain and use the new TLD "to increase the convenience and effectiveness of its online communications."
According to Wikipedia, the origin of the company name dates to 1934 when a prototype camera was dubbed "Kwanon" after the Buddhist Bodhisattva "Guan Yin," associated with compassion, mercy and love. Of course, the textual components of the CANON mark also represent the generic term, "canon," which is defined as the "body of ecclesiastical law" and "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art." In fact, the adoption of the mark CANON sought to represent both of these concepts and thus "worthy of a company involved with precision equipment, where accuracy is fundamentally important."
Despite the recent economic downturn, Canon appears to be doing well, projecting to post an operating profit that may double the company's original projection for the quarter ending this month and acquiring recently the Dutch photocopy maker Oce. Today, Canon represents the world's largest digital camera maker and yet office imaging products and computer peripherals constitute more than 60% of Canon's sales.
So what might Canon be planning for the .canon TLD? In November 2008, MarkMonitor hosted a webinar, "Protecting Your Brand Online: From TLD to new gTLD," which may shed some light, in which three examples were suggested with regard to trademark owners might use a new top-level domain: restricted use by the trademark owner only, limited use by the trademark owner and partners, and expanded use by the trademark owner, partners and consumers.
Perhaps Canon seeks the .canon top-level domain simply to prevent the TLD's use in the generic sense as an identifier of ecclesiastical law or a body of accepted standards. Canon could register .canon and restrict its use only for simple corporate website addresses and for employee e-mail addresses, but, based on the press release alluding to "the convenience and effectiveness of its online communications," it appears Canon has bigger plans.
Canon could register .canon and make use of all these purposes and also allow the registration of .canon domain names by its authorized dealers, resellers and distributors of Canon's goods and services. Authorized dealers of Canon's consumer products, as well as resellers and distributors of its industrial and office products and services, could register domain names in the .canon TLD, which would give Canon greater control of the registration and use of .canon domain names and websites and also potentially provide consumers of Canon's goods and services with greater verification of the providers of said goods and services.
Going further, by registering the .canon TLD, Canon could, in addition to the purposes related to its partners, offer the possibility of registering .canon domain names to its consumers, particularly in relation to its digital camera business. Few practices involve the emotional attachment that many people feel in relation to the photographs they take with their cameras. Canon's registration of the .canon TLD could provide Canon's consumers with greater security and authentication for images held with a deep emotional attachment, as well as providing Canon with the ability to monitor the registration and use of .canon domain names.
All of this is conjecture, of course, but it is fun to think about. ICANN has often claimed that the introduction of new TLDs is intended to provide for greater innovation and choice in the Internet realm. As for innovation, few companies match Canon, at least as measured by having consistently finished within the top three in rankings of corporations receiving patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
According to Wikipedia, the origin of the company name dates to 1934 when a prototype camera was dubbed "Kwanon" after the Buddhist Bodhisattva "Guan Yin," associated with compassion, mercy and love. Of course, the textual components of the CANON mark also represent the generic term, "canon," which is defined as the "body of ecclesiastical law" and "the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art." In fact, the adoption of the mark CANON sought to represent both of these concepts and thus "worthy of a company involved with precision equipment, where accuracy is fundamentally important."
Despite the recent economic downturn, Canon appears to be doing well, projecting to post an operating profit that may double the company's original projection for the quarter ending this month and acquiring recently the Dutch photocopy maker Oce. Today, Canon represents the world's largest digital camera maker and yet office imaging products and computer peripherals constitute more than 60% of Canon's sales.
So what might Canon be planning for the .canon TLD? In November 2008, MarkMonitor hosted a webinar, "Protecting Your Brand Online: From TLD to new gTLD," which may shed some light, in which three examples were suggested with regard to trademark owners might use a new top-level domain: restricted use by the trademark owner only, limited use by the trademark owner and partners, and expanded use by the trademark owner, partners and consumers.
Perhaps Canon seeks the .canon top-level domain simply to prevent the TLD's use in the generic sense as an identifier of ecclesiastical law or a body of accepted standards. Canon could register .canon and restrict its use only for simple corporate website addresses and for employee e-mail addresses, but, based on the press release alluding to "the convenience and effectiveness of its online communications," it appears Canon has bigger plans.
Canon could register .canon and make use of all these purposes and also allow the registration of .canon domain names by its authorized dealers, resellers and distributors of Canon's goods and services. Authorized dealers of Canon's consumer products, as well as resellers and distributors of its industrial and office products and services, could register domain names in the .canon TLD, which would give Canon greater control of the registration and use of .canon domain names and websites and also potentially provide consumers of Canon's goods and services with greater verification of the providers of said goods and services.
Going further, by registering the .canon TLD, Canon could, in addition to the purposes related to its partners, offer the possibility of registering .canon domain names to its consumers, particularly in relation to its digital camera business. Few practices involve the emotional attachment that many people feel in relation to the photographs they take with their cameras. Canon's registration of the .canon TLD could provide Canon's consumers with greater security and authentication for images held with a deep emotional attachment, as well as providing Canon with the ability to monitor the registration and use of .canon domain names.
All of this is conjecture, of course, but it is fun to think about. ICANN has often claimed that the introduction of new TLDs is intended to provide for greater innovation and choice in the Internet realm. As for innovation, few companies match Canon, at least as measured by having consistently finished within the top three in rankings of corporations receiving patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
EOI Scrapped: New TLDs On Course
Last Friday, ICANN concluded its 37th Meeting with a meeting of the ICANN Board, during which the Board scrapped the Expressions of Interest or "EOI" proposal. In reading through the transcript of the discussion, it is evident that some of the members of the Board harbored reservations about the time line for the EOI, which was to progress concurrently with the implementation of the New TLD Program.
Particularly in light of the fact that the EOI proposal was intended to move the New TLD Program forward, the title of the press release announcing the resolution to scrap the EOI is at least noteworthy: "ICANN Board Stays on Course for Launch of New gTLD Program," which avers, "ICANN will continue to concentrate effort on the resolution of remaining issues and the development of operational resources for launch of the program."
For trademark owners, the next development to keep an eye out for at this point is the release of the latest incarnation of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which should be published prior to the next ICANN Meeting in Brussels in late June. The DAG should include the three elements referenced below in a previous post: Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure and Post Dispute Delegation Resolution Procedure, all of which we will be discussing here in detail over the next few posts.
Presumably as a first step in the latest push for the New TLD Program, ICANN will host a webinar March 17th to discuss the implementation of the New TLD Program.
Particularly in light of the fact that the EOI proposal was intended to move the New TLD Program forward, the title of the press release announcing the resolution to scrap the EOI is at least noteworthy: "ICANN Board Stays on Course for Launch of New gTLD Program," which avers, "ICANN will continue to concentrate effort on the resolution of remaining issues and the development of operational resources for launch of the program."
For trademark owners, the next development to keep an eye out for at this point is the release of the latest incarnation of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, which should be published prior to the next ICANN Meeting in Brussels in late June. The DAG should include the three elements referenced below in a previous post: Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure and Post Dispute Delegation Resolution Procedure, all of which we will be discussing here in detail over the next few posts.
Presumably as a first step in the latest push for the New TLD Program, ICANN will host a webinar March 17th to discuss the implementation of the New TLD Program.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
ICANN Meetings Beget Additional Acronyms: The URS and the UDRP
As I mentioned before, I attended remotely the presentation on "Trademark Protection in New gTLDs" at the ICANN Nairobi meeting on Monday. One of the trademark protection mechanisms for domain names registered in new TLDs discussed was the Uniform Rapid Suspension System or URS.
The URS is modeled after the UDRP. In fact, the elements to be proved are largely the same:
- The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant holds a valid registration issued by a jurisdiction that conducts a substantive examination of trademark applications prior to registration; and
- The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
- The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
One difference is the standard of proof. Since the URS is intended only for "clear cases of trademark abuse," the complainant must prove with "clear and convincing evidence" all three elements of the UDRP.
Another difference is available remedy. If the Examiner determines that the complainant has met its burden of proof, "the domain name shall be suspended for the balance of the registration period" and would resolve to "an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS," meaning, ultimately, that the domain name registration would eventually expire, rather than transfer to the complainant as under the UDRP.
Although the discussion of the URS was primarily amenable, ICANN still has an open comment period for the URS draft proposal. And while the URS was developed to provide an inexpensive and efficient alternative to the UDRP, some meeting attendees referenced the fact that domain name dispute resolution providers have proposed expedited UDRP filings and how such "fast track" UDRPs might relate to the URS.
Of course, although the URS proposal has yet to gain full approval and expedited UDRP filings are now unavailable, there remains a convergence toward less expensive and more efficient domain name dispute resolution.
Next in line: RRDRP.
The URS is modeled after the UDRP. In fact, the elements to be proved are largely the same:
- The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant holds a valid registration issued by a jurisdiction that conducts a substantive examination of trademark applications prior to registration; and
- The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
- The domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
One difference is the standard of proof. Since the URS is intended only for "clear cases of trademark abuse," the complainant must prove with "clear and convincing evidence" all three elements of the UDRP.
Another difference is available remedy. If the Examiner determines that the complainant has met its burden of proof, "the domain name shall be suspended for the balance of the registration period" and would resolve to "an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS," meaning, ultimately, that the domain name registration would eventually expire, rather than transfer to the complainant as under the UDRP.
Although the discussion of the URS was primarily amenable, ICANN still has an open comment period for the URS draft proposal. And while the URS was developed to provide an inexpensive and efficient alternative to the UDRP, some meeting attendees referenced the fact that domain name dispute resolution providers have proposed expedited UDRP filings and how such "fast track" UDRPs might relate to the URS.
Of course, although the URS proposal has yet to gain full approval and expedited UDRP filings are now unavailable, there remains a convergence toward less expensive and more efficient domain name dispute resolution.
Next in line: RRDRP.
Monday, March 8, 2010
An End to Hand-Wringing?
ICANN Meeting number 37 is now in full swing in Nairobi, Kenya. There are a number of presentations throughout the week that should be of interest to readers of this blog. Although there were problems with the audio feed during the meeting I attended this morning, the opportunity to participate remotely is greater than ever.
The presentation I attended was titled, "Trademark Protection in New gTLDs" and the discussion was segmented according to three topics: Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure and Post Dispute Delegation Resolution Procedure.
We will be discussing some of these issues throughout the week in depth, but the tone of the discussion itself bears mentioning before we get into the substance of the debate. I believe the moderator of the presentation, Mike Silber, referenced this twice, but it remains worth mentioning again that there is now significant consensus with regard to the issues related to trademark protection. As I have maintained for some time now, the implementation of new top-level domains is inevitable. The time for hand-wringing has concluded and trademark owners must plan now to deal with the introduction of new TLDs.
The presentation I attended was titled, "Trademark Protection in New gTLDs" and the discussion was segmented according to three topics: Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid Suspension Procedure and Post Dispute Delegation Resolution Procedure.
We will be discussing some of these issues throughout the week in depth, but the tone of the discussion itself bears mentioning before we get into the substance of the debate. I believe the moderator of the presentation, Mike Silber, referenced this twice, but it remains worth mentioning again that there is now significant consensus with regard to the issues related to trademark protection. As I have maintained for some time now, the implementation of new top-level domains is inevitable. The time for hand-wringing has concluded and trademark owners must plan now to deal with the introduction of new TLDs.
Monday, February 1, 2010
IDN ccTLDs One Step Closer
As mentioned below, ICANN is currently in the process of approving IDN ccTLD requests and recently announced that four internationalized domain names had been approved: Egypt, the Russian Federation, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. The languages associated with the first four IDN ccTLDs to be approved include Arabic and Russian in Arabic and Cyrillic scripts, representing another step closer for IDN ccTLDs.
From the perspective of trademark owners, important considerations include: Do the referenced nations represent significant geographic areas in which the company does business or a natural area of business expansion? Has the brand owner registered and/or used a translation or transliteration of the trademark in either of these scripts?
It was also recently announced that the registry behind the application for the Russian Federation, incorporating the Cyrillic script, intends to begin operation in March of this year.
From the perspective of trademark owners, important considerations include: Do the referenced nations represent significant geographic areas in which the company does business or a natural area of business expansion? Has the brand owner registered and/or used a translation or transliteration of the trademark in either of these scripts?
It was also recently announced that the registry behind the application for the Russian Federation, incorporating the Cyrillic script, intends to begin operation in March of this year.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Important Dates for Trademark Owners in Early 2010: Pending Introduction of New TLDs
As referenced below, this blog is intended to keep trademark owners abreast of developments with regard to the introduction of new top-level domains. With the turn of the calendar to 2010, there is a lot coming around the corner of which brand owners should be aware. It is my intent to increase the frequency of posts as developments occur, but there are a number of impending dates important to this process.
On January 27, 2010, the public comment period closes regarding the draft model for Expressions of Interest for new top-level domains. Important considerations that may effect trademark owners include:
Participation in the Expressions of Interest is mandatory. If a trademark owner chooses not to participate, said trademark owner may not apply in the first round of new TLDs.
A deposit of $55,000 is required to participate. This fee will be credited against the proposed $185,000 application fee to register a new TLD.
The $55,000 deposit is refundable only if ICANN fails to act on the introduction of new TLDs prior to approximately the end of 2011.
The potential applicant, applicant contact information and to-be applied-for TLD will be made public.
On February 4, 2010, at the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, the Board will consider the draft and public comments, and may vote to proceed with the draft model.
Here is a list of potential participants and applicants thus far.
With regard to Internationalized Domain Names, ICANN still intends to introduce new country-code top-level domains in non-Latin scripts in early 2010. At this point, there are 16 requests for IDNs in eight languages.
To reiterate, there is a lot coming around the corner for trademark owners with regard to the introduction of new TLDs. Brand owners should be sure to pay attention to the above deadlines and any changes that may occur in the near future. The intent is for this blog to serve as a clearinghouse of information and updates for trademark owners concerned with these issues.
On January 27, 2010, the public comment period closes regarding the draft model for Expressions of Interest for new top-level domains. Important considerations that may effect trademark owners include:
Participation in the Expressions of Interest is mandatory. If a trademark owner chooses not to participate, said trademark owner may not apply in the first round of new TLDs.
A deposit of $55,000 is required to participate. This fee will be credited against the proposed $185,000 application fee to register a new TLD.
The $55,000 deposit is refundable only if ICANN fails to act on the introduction of new TLDs prior to approximately the end of 2011.
The potential applicant, applicant contact information and to-be applied-for TLD will be made public.
On February 4, 2010, at the Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors, the Board will consider the draft and public comments, and may vote to proceed with the draft model.
Here is a list of potential participants and applicants thus far.
With regard to Internationalized Domain Names, ICANN still intends to introduce new country-code top-level domains in non-Latin scripts in early 2010. At this point, there are 16 requests for IDNs in eight languages.
To reiterate, there is a lot coming around the corner for trademark owners with regard to the introduction of new TLDs. Brand owners should be sure to pay attention to the above deadlines and any changes that may occur in the near future. The intent is for this blog to serve as a clearinghouse of information and updates for trademark owners concerned with these issues.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
ICANN's IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Updates
In relation to the discussion of IDNs below, ICANN is posting updates with regard to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process here. So far 10 requests for IDNs have been submitted in five languages. Check back often to stay apprised of any information related to the introduction of new TLDs.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Suggestions for Protocols
In the previous post, the suggestion was made that trademark owners should treat the introduction of IDNs as a test run for the implementation of new gTLDs, which resulted in a couple of e-mails seeking suggestions as to what such protocols might entail.
New gTLDs are somewhat more complicated, but IDNs are similar to ccTLDs with regard to factors to consider in registration.
Do you have a trademark registration in the relevant country?
Do you conduct significant business in that country?
Is the country a likely prospect for expansion?
What would be your likely response if your trademark was registered as a domain name by a third party?
These are some of the questions trademark owners need to be considering as the introduction of IDNs comes closer to reality. The implementation of new gTLDs may be delayed, but new gTLDs are inevitable. The sooner trademark owners begin asking the above-referenced questions, the less painful the ultimate roll out will be.
New gTLDs are somewhat more complicated, but IDNs are similar to ccTLDs with regard to factors to consider in registration.
Do you have a trademark registration in the relevant country?
Do you conduct significant business in that country?
Is the country a likely prospect for expansion?
What would be your likely response if your trademark was registered as a domain name by a third party?
These are some of the questions trademark owners need to be considering as the introduction of IDNs comes closer to reality. The implementation of new gTLDs may be delayed, but new gTLDs are inevitable. The sooner trademark owners begin asking the above-referenced questions, the less painful the ultimate roll out will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
