User talk:Jean william

Welcome to ICANNWiki! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Summerfang (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

.eco page

Greetings, Jean. I have rolled back your edits on the .eco page. ICANNWiki's values encourage us to presume good faith in every edit. That said, ICANNWiki's goal is to be a neutral reference work for the ICANN community. The edits you made to the .eco page were contrary to the facts. There are public records of ICANN's award of the TLD and the subsequent delegation process. There are also public records of the many disputes around planet.ECO's trademark, the WIPO proceeding regarding .eco, and other contested issues surrounding .eco. Those subject areas could be better presented on the page, and I've started to clean up and organize the history of the TLD application process and subsequent proceedings. However, commentary about the fairness or legitimacy of those proceedings diminish ICANNWiki's commitment to fairness and transparency. In addition, it has been repeatedly determined by ICANN and other bodies that planet.ECO's trademark did not preclude, nor does it now invalidate, the delegation of .eco to Big Room Inc. Any representation that planet.ECO is the "owner" of the .eco TLD is simply incorrect.

I'll be continuing to work on the .eco page, and will be sure to preserve and include references to the various controversies surrounding the domain. The history was controversial, and that should be acknowledged and reported. However, I ask that you refrain from presenting planet.ECO's side of the story as fact. Thank you for understanding. --JP

Greetings to you, JP.

As there are no do overs with our environment, we wasted another 4 years prevailing in litigation brought on by Big Room to control ".ECO" and have us imprisoned, it is obvious we take environmental stewardship and efforts to save our planet very seriously and have found our purpose. We do not have another 10 years+ to waste in proving why our rights are legitimate and why Big Room is illegitimate."

We find it interesting that only after we edited the misspelling of our company name and misleading information on the ICANNwiki ".eco" page, you appeared, rolled back our edits, “encourage us to presume good faith in every edit” yet agree with the way we view the ".eco" page - the "subject areas could be better presented on the page." It is unfortunate and expected that fairness and transparency are lacking from the .eco ICANNwiki page.. However, we are now cautiously encouraged that the information leading to improper conclusion may be corrected.

It is also worth to note that we have reason to believe, any representation that Big Room Inc. is the "owner" of the .eco TLD is simply incorrect, misleading and may even be fraud. Considering you are an attorney working on our the ".ECO" page, please ensure that we, and more importantly, the consumers and the public are provided evidence supporting the properly authorized delegation claim (not designation) of ".eco" to Big Room Inc.

At this point in time, it appears there is no valid owner of the ".eco" TLD. The valid owner of .ECO is shown below:

.ECO® registration 3716170, 5851826, 5813887 and 6220615 are federally registered trademarks of planet .ECO LLC for Advertising and Marketing; Advertisement Agency; Database Management; Design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties; Hosting of digital content on the Internet; Providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet (Domain Name related Services).

Please note the name of our company is "planet .ECO®" not Planet.ECO. Jean william (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC), JW

Page locked

Thanks Jean for the feedback regarding the inconsistent presentation of your LLC's name. We are of course happy to use your preferred case and spacing for the name. However, I note that your certificate of formation with the CT Secretary of State does not include the circle-R, which is (at least in my experience) not something that one can normally include in a business name.

I understand that your .ECO word mark is registered in the "Advertising agency services; Database management" classes of goods and services. This does not mean that you are the owners of the TLD. As you no doubt recall, your application to register a design mark for "Domain registry operator services featuring the TLD in the mark, in Class 42" was refused registration because it was deemed deceptive. That refusal specifically rejects the notion that planet .ECO could register a trademark for domain registry services without a Registry Agreement between planet .ECO and ICANN:

The applicant is advised that even if the applicant’s application were still pending at ICANN, this application would not be approved for publication. See TMEP §1215.02(d)(iii). [If] there was evidence of record that the applicant’s ICANN application were still pending, action on this application would be suspended until the applicant submitted evidence that it had entered into a currently valid Registry Agreement with ICANN, designating the applicant as the Registry Operator for the TLD identified by the mark. See id.

The cited section of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure states that registration will be refused as de facto deceptive if the applicant cannot provide evidence that it has entered into a Registry Agreement to provide registry services for the TLD included in the mark. In short, you were refused trademark registration because such registration would have deceived the public into believing that you were the registry of record for the .eco domain.

The refusal also notes that decisions made by ICANN have nothing to do with the Patent and Trademark Office's work, and neither entity has jurisdiction over the other. Your cannot make your trademark ownership "mean something" in reference to ICANN's application and delegation processes by force of argument or will. ICANN and IANA records make it clear that Big Room's application was accepted, and that the .eco domain was delegated to Big Room Inc.

Your efforts to revise this history are counterproductive to the goals of the wiki. Since my original message, I have learned that you have been suspended from this wiki more than once for making similar attempts to edit material relating to the .eco domain. I have locked editing permissions on the .eco page to admins only. Respectfully, should you continue to make edits to the wiki that attempt to contradict established facts, your account privileges will again be revoked. --JP

Big Room's 4th .eco Registry Operator related Application --Refused

Thank you Attorney J-P Voillequé,

I see that you are well versed in the complex gTLD delegation process and US trademark law. I also find it interesting that you continue to propagate disinformation regarding our trademark and brand, .ECO, as if Big Room Inc. has any legal basis to use or operate .eco.

The .ECO word-mark was applied for on 4/20/2008, published on 09/09/2008, and became registered with the USPTO on 11/24/2009 for “Design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties; Hosting of digital content on the Internet; [and] Providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet,”

(collectively referred to by the USPTO as “domain name-related services”) under Class 42 for Science and Technology Services; USPTO Trademark Reg. #3716170

Below is part of the determination made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 4, 2019 when it rejected Big Room’s 4th trademark application to legitimize its use of .eco:

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Section 2(d) Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 3716170, 5813887, and 5851826. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations. These include an updated copy of Registration No. 3716170, which has been renewed since the initial refusal was issued.

The applicant has applied to register .ECO in stylized form for:

:Domain registry operator services, in Class 42.Italic text

The registered marks, all owned by the same entity, are the following:

Registration No. 3716170 is .ECO in standard-character form for “Design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties; Hosting of digital content on the Internet; Providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet, in Class 42.

Registration No. 5813887 is .ECO and design for “Computerized database management,” in Class 35.

Registration No. 5851826 is .ECO in standard-character form for “Advertisement for others on the Internet; advertising and marketing services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others; compilation of advertisements for use as web pages on the Internet; providing and rental of advertising space on the Internet,” in Class 35.

You modified the “.eco” ICANN’s wiki page, which in part reads, "The .eco gTLD was delegated by IANA on August 29th, 2016 with Big Room Inc. as the Sponsoring Organization." This is disturbing as the associated footnotes do not validate nor support your statement. Without verification shouldn’t this information be removed, especially after I provided verifiable trademark registration information and you arbitrarily removed it and locked me.

Attorney J-P Voillequé - please update the page removing infringing material, including the logo or provide correct information validating Big Room as the registry operator you proclaim. The errors are causing irreparable harm to our brand .ECO and company, planet .ECO LLC.

Thank you,

Jean william (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll reiterate: Your trademark rights have nothing to do with ICANN's approval of Big Room as the Registry operator for the .eco TLD.

Hi Jean - It is true that Big Room failed to obtain a trademark for ".eco" because of your prior claim on the mark. This does nothing to the legal effect of the Registry Agreement that is currently in full force and effect between ICANN and Big Room.

Your arguments about your trademarks do not change the facts. Again, as you surely must remember, planet .ECO's effort to invalidate the other applications for the .eco TLD, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California at the time of the application process, did not succeed, and was ultimately dismissed by stipulation. I explain above that no one can establish trademark protections for a TLD without proof that they have signed a Registry Agreement with ICANN. You have not signed such an agreement, and Big Room has. You cannot leverage your trademarks to overturn that agreement, and as much as you'd like to pretend that the agreement doesn't exist, that interpretation of reality is contrary to the wiki's neutral point of view.

Your concerns for your logos and branding do not justify alterations of material fact. The logo posted on the .eco page is the logo found on the the go.eco website. You do not have a registered trademark for that logo. You do not have a registered trademark for the logo you have posted on planet .ECO's information page on this wiki, nor for similar design marks that you use in various places on your website. You also do not appear to be using the design mark that you have registered, but even if you were, the logo found on go.eco does not infringe upon that mark.

I'm going to maintain the lock on the .eco page, and this is the last response I'm going to provide here.

Once again Greetings to you, Attorney J-P Voillequé,

I'll reiterate: "ICANN's approval of Big Room as the Registry operator for the .eco TLD" has nothing to do with the issue of "authorized delegation".

Do not misconstrue the obvious fact that Big Room was approved by the government contractor. That is very obvious.

I hope you, as an attorney working with ISOC, are not trying to suggest "approval" and the CO's authority to delegate Big Room Inc. is the same? If so, I think that's inappropriate.

We are obviously being treated differently, singled out and, in my humble opinion, you are helping to create and perpetuate a very strange and false narrative.

Moving forward, under planet .ECO Trademark Litigation, please correct the following, as the global community should be made aware of the many litigations brought on by Big Room's persistent frivolous filings against us.

This fact needs to be clear and transparent - When it comes to our trademark ".eco", both parties, Big Room Inc. and Doteco (TLDH), co-founded by former ICANN Board Members and Key Executives, were Dismissed With Prejudice.

In total there were 6 attempts to cancel, oppose, and/or petition against us, brought by companies founded by former ICANN Board Members and Key Executive.

To reiterate - we do not dispute any fact regarding the government contractor's recommendation to delegate foreign company Big Room Inc., pursuant with Section C.2.9.2d of DoC/NTIA Federal Contract SA1301-CN-12-0035.

Without evidence, we dispute Big Room's standing and authorization to provide ".eco" Registry Operator Services, as prescribed in Section G1 - Contracting Officer's Authority.

United States Patent and Trademark Activities and Events are shown below.

1. On July 15, 2008 Big Room Inc. submitted trademark application # 77523010, and was refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the Office, due to likelihood of confusion with “.eco” mark(s) owned by .ECO®.

2. On July 15, 2008 Big Room Inc. submitted trademark application # 77523015, and was refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the Office, due to likelihood of confusion with “.eco” mark(s) owned by .ECO®.

3. On January 8, 2009 Big Room Inc submitted trademark application # 77646029 and was refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the Office, due to likelihood of confusion with “.eco” mark(s) owned by .ECO®.

4. On January 4, 2010 Doteco LLC filed USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92051924 against .ECO® founder Moses Boone. On January 9, 2012, the litigation was Dismissed with Prejudice.

5. On February 17, 2012 Big Room Inc filed USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92055197 against .ECO®. On July 16, 2013, the litigation was Dismissed.

6. On April 12, 2012 Top Level Domain Holdings Inc. (TLDH), founded and operated by former ICANN Chair, Board Members and Key Executives, filed USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92055469 against .ECO®. On November 2, 2012, the litigation was Dismissed.

7. On November 20, 2014 Big Room Inc filed USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92060403 against .ECO®. On May 28, 2015, the litigation was Dismissed.

8. On May 29, 2015 USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92060403 was cured by Big Room Inc. and on July 17, 2015 again, Dismissed.

9. On 8/28/2016, Big Room was designated the registry operator of the .ECO gTLD and 006Fn September 9, 2016 Big Room Inc filed and was granted a 90 Day Extension of time to investigate and Oppose .ECO® “.eco” application serial # 86846214. On December 14, 2016 Big Room Inc followed up by filing USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 91231750 against .ECO®. On May 7, 2019, the trademark proceeding was Dismissed w/ Prejudice.

10. On February 7, 2017 Big Room Inc submitted trademark application # 87327563, believing it could now obtain a “.eco” trademark to provide Domain Registry Services. On September 4, 2019 that application was also refused, dismissed, or invalidated by the Office, due to likelihood of confusion with “.eco” mark(s) owned by .ECO®. In March 2020, the application was deemed abandoned and dead by the Trademark Office.

Big Room, Inc., a Canadian Corporation with offices in Connecticut, was made actually aware of the planet .ECO®, LLC. mark as early as 3/30/2009, when its application for a phonetically similar word-mark was denied by the USPTO on likelihood of confusion grounds under Trademark Act §2(d).

Jean william (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)