Archive for the ‘Domain Names’ Category

New gTLD’s … New Burdens

Sunday, March 30th, 2014

domains You may recall that we reported about “one of the biggest changes in the Domain Name System” was about to be implemented by ICANN, which was introducing hundreds of new top level domains that could “end with almost any word in any language.”¬† So, instead of such dependable and familiar domains like “nike.com” and “nikon.com”, you could have “nike.shoes” or “nikon.camera.”¬† Pretty cool, right?¬† Well, maybe not so much for trademark owners.

The roll out of the new domains has been slow-paced, however, as registrars come on line with the new domains (after paying hefty application and registration fees) some trademark experts worry that the explosion of top level domains places too much burden on brand owners to police their marks and purchase unwanted domains for the sole purpose of keeping them out of the hands of would-be cyber squatters and infringers.¬† Francis Gurry, the head of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), is on record of stating that the impact upon trademark protection is “likely to be significant and disruptive.”¬†¬† SecurityWeek.com quoted Gurry:

‘The opportunity for misuse of trademarks expands exponentially,’ said Gurry, noting that registering a domain name is a cheap, automatic procedure that takes a matter of seconds and does not have a filter to examine whether there is a trademark conflict.

According to the same SecurityWeek.com article, in 2013, 2,585 cases involving 6,191 domains were were filed with WIPO, which is one of the arbiters in charge of domain disputes.¬† It is currently hearing its first case concerning a new gTLD in which a German company, Canyon Bicycles GmbH, is objecting to a Dutch registrant of canyon.bike.¬† The German company is a worldwide distributor of bicycle products and is involved in numerous international cycling events.¬† The registrant of the domain is an individual based in the Netherlands who states that he is a cyclist and web designer in the cycling industry. The disputed domain name points to a website parking page provided by the Registrar which, according to the screenshot provided by the Center, features sponsored listings including one entitled “Mountainbikes”.¬† To learn more about the case visit WIPO’s website.

This case may foreshadow many more similar disputes.¬† We’ll keep you posted.

– Adam G. Garson, Esq.

LWH Reclaims Domain Name from Marchex Sales

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

domainsYour trademarks are among your company’s most valuable assets; controlling them is a necessity for successful branding.¬† Domain names, particularly if they incorporate your trademarks, are part of your intellectual property portfolio and demand as much attention as your other assets.

Sometimes, through no fault of your own,¬† another company owns a domain name, which flatly infringes your trademark.¬† Such was the case with a client who recently retained Adam Garson of Lipton, Weinberger & Husick to reclaim a domain name from Marchex Sales, Inc. (Marchex), a public company in the business of acquiring huge portfolios of domains for Internet marketing.¬† It owns such domains as videocamera.com, Debts.com, LasVegasVacations.com, CareerInfo.com and RentGuide.com.¬† Marchex was running a website using our client’s trademark as its domain name.¬† The web site contained various links to related goods and services including our client’s competitors.

Our client’s trademark, which cannot be disclosed here for confidentiality reasons, was only recently registered with United States Patent and Trademark Office.¬† Nevertheless, it had been using the mark since the 1990′s and could prove continuous use until the present.

To rescue our client’s domain name, LWH filed an administrative action with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).¬† The UDRP is a procedure sanctioned by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and is available to anyone who has a domain name dispute.¬† The UDRP may be used to obtain an order directing a domain’s registrar to transfer the domain to its rightful owner.

To succeed, the plaintiff — in this case our client — is required to prove the following:

(i) its domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) its domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The process involves eight steps, from filing a complaint to final review.¬† In our situation, it took 60 days after filing the complaint for the NAF to render an opinion.¬† The panel found in favor of our client on all three counts.¬† Marchex, the Respondent, argued that at the time it acquired the domain name, our client possessed no trademark rights because the trademark was generic and descriptive.¬† The Panel rejected that argument.¬† Here’s a sample from the panel’s 24-page opinion:

Complainant’s uncontested relevant evidence presented in support of Complainant’s having timely common law trademark rights in the at-issue mark are sufficient to demonstrate secondary meaning and overcome any presumption that the … mark is generic notwithstanding that each of the component words may be generic when taken discretely.

Respondent takes no steps to avoid holding or using trademarked domain names when it would be a simple matter to screen domain names prior to registration or acquisition to determine if they contain registered trademarks or marks in which there is likely a claim of rights such as the … mark.¬† With even less trouble the Respondent might, after finding out that a trademarked domain name such as Complainant’s was registered as a domain name, cancel the trademarked domain name or voluntarily transfer registration, rather than link it do the mark holder’s competition.

….

It thus seems disingenuous for Respondent to claim it acquires domains because of the target domain name’s descriptive value. And even if Respondent’s motivation is as stated, the fact that Respondent cares not that it also is acquiring trademarked names is troubling and further calls into question the bona fide nature of Respondent’s endeavors….Registrants of large numbers of domain names or those acquiring domain names in bulk must be particularly careful in respect of the rights of third parties.

The case demonstrates that trademark owners who can establish common law trademark rights can prevail against large corporations even when the odds do not seem particularly favorable.  Let us know if we can assist you with your efforts at reclaiming your trademarks and domain names.

– Adam G. Garson, Esq.

ICAAN Changes the Web!

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

ICANNIt is not an understatement to suggest that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) new plan to increase the number of top level domains is one of the biggest changes to the Domain Name System since it was founded.¬†¬† Top Level Domains (gTLDs) are those domain names at the the highest level of the Internet’s hierarchical domain name system.

Evolution of the domain naming system has been slow relative to changes in Internet technology. In the 1980s, only seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) existed and in the following years, ICANN slowly added new domains such as .biz, .info, .name, .pro and so on.¬† More recently, a .xxx was added, totaling 22 top level domains.¬†¬† Now all that has changed.¬† On June June 20, 2011, ICANN’s board voted to permit top level domain names to “end with almost any word in any language, offering organizations around the world the opportunity to market their brand, products, community or cause in new and innovative ways.”¬† ICANN’s description of the new changes were nothing less than ecstatic.¬† Here’s a sample:

ICANN has opened the Internet’s naming system to unleash the global human imagination. Today’s decision respects the rights of groups to create new Top Level Domains in any language or script. We hope this allows the domain name system to better serve all of mankind,” said Rod Beckstrom, President and Chief Executive Officer of ICANN.

Today’s decision will usher in a new Internet age,” said Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman of ICANN’s Board of Directors. “We have provided a platform for the next generation of creativity and inspiration.

Getting one of those new names is not going to be simple or inexpensive.¬† First, there will be an extensive evaluation period for each applicant and second, there will be some hefty fees.¬† The proposed evaluation fee will be $185,000 plus a $25,000 annual maintenance fee.¬† Without a doubt, the big players in the branding world will be quick to take advantage of the new system.¬† Expect to see domain names like cameras.nikon or shoes.nike.¬†¬† Clearly, the advantage of the new naming system for small businesses will be few. If you’re interested in the details, here is a link to ICANN’s guidebook to the new gTLD system. You’ll want to monitor ICANN’s web site because the new gTLD’s will only be offered during a set period of time with later rounds at future dates.¬† Click here for the fact sheet.

– Adam G. Garson, Esq.