Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
mary.wong
40:53
@Zak, that’s one of several reasons (esp stability and quality of VoIP) why we are switching to Zoom :)
Julie Bisland
41:46
Please can I ask who called in from phone number ending in 6759?
Julie Bisland
43:11
@Rebecca: is the phone number ending in 6759 yours by chance?
Rebecca Tushnet
47:30
703 is me
Rebecca Tushnet
48:23
I can see, thanks.
Julie Bisland
48:36
Thanks all!
Ariel Liang
48:50
Both the summary table and individual proposal 6 have been sent to the chat, and you can scroll through the documents on your own
Ariel Liang
49:20
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
54:30
Table this?
Ariel Liang
54:30
Noted the question, thanks Kathy
mary.wong
54:40
Hand up
Cyntia King
54:55
Agree @Kathy. We should table until we have some basic knowledge of the need & whether they've done this before.
Kathy Kleiman
54:57
Tx!
mary.wong
56:00
From the Org perspective, and as Roger noted, this seems like a very open ended and expensive undertaking. May I (on behalf of Org) ask what the specific problem is that is being addressed?
Kathy Kleiman
56:59
@Mary: when do you expect an answer?
Griffin Barnett
01:00:56
I've got my hand up....
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:46
I'd like to raise my hand--with audio off on my computer I'm not sure how best to do that.
Michael Graham
01:03:24
Comment <Most domain names that we have issue with are Match Plus some other elements. Very few exact matches. And notifying applicants of possible issues would permit them to consider continuing or not.>
Griffin Barnett
01:04:01
I can respond to Roger's question
Griffin Barnett
01:04:07
Or Kristine can!
Griffin Barnett
01:04:11
:)
Griffin Barnett
01:04:22
A UDRP or a court case I think
Griffin Barnett
01:05:15
Agree that the TM+50 mechanism could be really useful, but many TM owners I think found it cost prohibitive, or perhaps it was not particularly well-publicized or well known
Michael Graham
01:05:17
Comment <Problem with +50 is that very few litigated domain names reappear."
mary.wong
01:05:17
The Abused Domain Name labels service allows rights holders to register up to 50 abused labels related to a verified trademark record in the Clearinghouse. These associated labels must have been the subject of a determination in a prior UDRP case or court decision in which the rights holder prevailed. The TMCH Validator, facilitated by Deloitte, will examine former and current ICANN-approved UDRP providers' database information and court case documentation to ensure each label submitted meets this criterion.
Griffin Barnett
01:05:39
Also agree with Kristine that TM+50 has its limitations because it only applies to previously-adjudicated variations
mary.wong
01:05:53
(sorry, forgot to include quotation marks. The text I just posted is from ICANN’s website)
Griffin Barnett
01:07:16
If the notice was generated through an algorithm where it captured a certain set of TM variants, the notice language could I think we crafted in a manner that appropriately and accurately captures that the attempted registration is an exact match or similar variation of a mark n the TMCH
Griffin Barnett
01:09:34
53% of potential registrants reported receiving a Claims notice [Reg G12]; 83% of those continued with registration [Reg E13]; 70% of actual registrants have never received any notices or warning of possible trademark conflict [Reg G19]; about 20% of potential registrants indicated they did not know anything about their country’s trademark law [Reg F27], so providing Claims notices for certain non-exact matches that would still likely be found “confusingly similar” to exact matches may be helpful/instructive given the “likelihood of confusion” standard for trademark infringement in most jurisdictions around the world.
Michael Graham
01:10:08
@Kathy -- What is the evidence/data you are referring to -- not the conclusions/projections?
Griffin Barnett
01:10:25
(just to cite some data that we previously gathered that is reflected in the data collection document for Q4)
Griffin Barnett
01:11:23
How did AG conclude that registrations are proportinately more for exact matches than variations? Or that UDRP/URS cases are more for exact matches than variations?
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:37
nalysis Group revised report
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:11:43
@Griffin, I'm 100% sympathetic. My primary concerns go to feasibility.
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:03
pages 25 and 28
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:15
I'd provide teh link, but it's on another machine...
Griffin Barnett
01:12:54
bad faith is alikelihood of confusion is a perfectly reasonable standard, and this standard is baked into the bad faith standard for domain disputes
Griffin Barnett
01:13:12
so not sure I agree with Rebecca about the standard
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:41
good sound
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:08
No, there's a HOTEL in the TMCH right now
Michael Graham
01:14:10
Kathy did not answer my question -- unless we take into account as data/evidence all the anecdotal statements from trademark owners, registrants, registries, etc. AG's report statements were conclusory and also made with the caveats of the report. They did not present evidence supporting these statements.
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:40
It's our data, Michael. It's what we are working off of.
Griffin Barnett
01:15:31
I would suggest that typos are actually the most likely to be in bad faith
Griffin Barnett
01:16:02
someone intentionally registering an obvious misspelling of a mark, that is
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:16
Goggle registered multiple times in USPTO before Google -- that's a typo.
Michael Graham
01:16:21
@Phil -- Agree that while triggering matches should be expanded, we do need to ensure it is not limitless -- as most typosquat variant-based proposals would probably be.
Griffin Barnett
01:16:49
@Kathy - that's obviously an edge cases where a variant is also its own actual dictionary word
Griffin Barnett
01:17:21
or a separate trademark in its own right
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:26
Enom -> Venom.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:50
One letter changes everything on many, many words.
Michael Graham
01:18:53
Quick question: To use "50Plus" does the list of variants have to be provided at the time of registration or can they be provided as decisions issue?
Griffin Barnett
01:19:25
@MIchael, I think they can be added incrementally as decisions come out, but I could be mistake
Griffin Barnett
01:19:27
*mistaken
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:19:35
+1 Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:20:55
+1 Susan
Michael Graham
01:21:02
@Kathy -- I'll keep looking for the data you're refering to, but I'm not finding it -- only AG's expression of the difficulty in making determinations other than suggesting possible (but not evidence-supported) conclusions.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:49
Not this area - Analysis Group spent a lot of time on this issue -- came up with very clear findings- and did not put limitations on their use.
Michael Graham
01:22:38
@Kathy -- Disagree with characterization as "clear findings".
Michael Graham
01:23:01
@Kathyy -- URS is not intended for variants, but for recidivists.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:23:43
The URS coding my RAs did actually does consider whether the proceeding was an exact match or not. A lot are; a lot aren't. But the ones that aren't don't group neatly into anything like "within the definition of the goods and services."
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:08
I recommend you look at that data to see the variety of different things that might be added or changed.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:12
Going to my original points, I still think it's better all around to provide broader notice (again, we are just talking about notice) than to force all parties to engage in curative mechanisms for the numerous variants that skirt the exact-match notice rules
Griffin Barnett
01:24:50
Remember also, that we are not just talking about the notice to prospective registrants, but also notifying TM owners themselves who might otherwise not even be aware of a non-exact match
Griffin Barnett
01:25:05
In order to consider taking curative action
mary.wong
01:26:29
Just FYI: the 50 abused labels are part of the list that can be used for a Claims Notice only. Additional variants that a TM owner may wish to add are usable for the Ongoing Notification Service that the TMCH offers separately.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:27:42
@Mary...is that the NORN?
Michael Graham
01:27:53
Comment: <The evidence of harm for my company (and others based on my conversations with in-house IP counsel) is that most of our enforcement in the domain name space is for either Typosquats or Exact Plus Trademark domain name applications. This harms both us (protecting our trademarks and ensuring consumer ability to trust them) and applicants (who might not be aware that a particular domain name may include a registered domain name). Agree that a well-crafted, informational notice is better than forcing applicants and trademark owners to take adverse, curative action.>
mary.wong
01:28:12
@Kristine, no, it’s the optional (non-ICANN RPM) additional service a TM owner can pay for from the TMCH.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:28:22
Ah, got it.
Michael Graham
01:28:38
@Rebecca -- Is the notice "not working" or is it "not working as well as it might"?
Cyntia King
01:28:42
Expanding & clarifying are not mutually exclusive.
Cyntia King
01:28:52
Re: Claims Notice
Zak Muscovitch
01:29:50
Expanding beyond accents and amlauts may result in additional uncertainty, confusion, and possiblya deteriration with the credibility of the notices. Example, Someone registers THEATER.ABC and gets a trademark notice for HEAT
Michael Graham
01:30:08
Sorry -- my audio/phone is too iffy to use.
julie.hedlund
01:30:09
@All: This meeting ends at 5 minutes to the top of the hour to allow time for a transition to the next meeting.
Griffin Barnett
01:30:13
As counsel to Marriott I'd rather get 5,000 notices included false positives than too few and be missing potentially serious abuse/infringement because it was missed due to skirting the matching rules currently in place
Rebecca Tushnet
01:31:07
Pretty sure there are watch services that do a better job than that.
Zak Muscovitch
01:31:15
As the counsel for the guy who could have registered riot.com I would disagree, Griffen ;)
Griffin Barnett
01:31:21
There are but they are much more costly
julie.hedlund
01:31:31
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
01:31:32
Costly to whom?
julie.hedlund
01:31:36
From staff?
Michael Graham
01:31:48
@Griffin -- Agree. I can screen 5000 EXPEDIA reports and it will be more time and cost efficient than having to monitor and take action every time I get a report.
Philip Corwin
01:31:53
Yes. I think without a specific proposal(s) we are talking in a vacuum.
Susan Payne
01:31:53
I think if we can advance on the list with suggestions that would be beneficial
Michael Graham
01:32:24
@Julie -- I do want to resubmit my Exact Plus proposal, so this would be great.
Cyntia King
01:32:26
I think we need a specific proposal or we're having a conceptual convo, not an implementable suggestion
Griffin Barnett
01:32:26
I thought there had been a previous proposal of sorts regarding expanded matching for Claims notice....or am I misremembering?
Susan Payne
01:32:32
there was previously a proposal on expanded matching
Griffin Barnett
01:32:41
Maybe it was still too conceptia;
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:46
I don't think we've shown harm in the data...
Griffin Barnett
01:32:47
*conceptual
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:59
If we are data-driven....
Michael Graham
01:33:07
@Griffin -- You'll see it shortly. All 3 of them.
Griffin Barnett
01:33:08
@Kathy - I previously flagged data that suggested the harms of current exact-match only
Ariel Liang
01:33:16
Thanks everyone
Griffin Barnett
01:33:24
Thanks all, hasta luego