.eco: Difference between revisions
Jean william (talk | contribs) m corrected spelling of planet .ECO. |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
2. [[Donuts]] (Little Birch, LLC) - one of 307 gTLD applications submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/790 here]. | 2. [[Donuts]] (Little Birch, LLC) - one of 307 gTLD applications submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/790 here]. | ||
3. [[planet.ECO LLC]] - | 3. [[planet.ECO LLC]] - The exclusive registrant of .ECO®, is a US-based Small Business, ([http://www.sba.gov/content/disadvantaged-businesses SBA-SDB)] <ref>[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=3716170&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch .ECO U.S. Trademark, Registrant planet.ECO LLC. Retrieved 03 Nov 2015.]</ref> | ||
4. [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]] (TLDH) - one of 68 gTLD applications submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523 here]. | 4. [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]] (TLDH) - one of 68 gTLD applications submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a [[PIC|Public Interest Commitment]], which can be downloaded [https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523 here]. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
In the interim, Big Room's proposal had gathered the support of more than 50 of the world's leading environmental organizations, including UN Environment, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, WWF, Greenpeace, and many others<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/26/battle-dot-eco-domain-name-internet-green-groups</ref>. These groups had collaborated independently on developing a unified vision for how .eco could support the interests of the community<ref>https://dotecocouncil.org/history/</ref>. This vision formed the backbone of the community section of Big Room's .eco application. | In the interim, Big Room's proposal had gathered the support of more than 50 of the world's leading environmental organizations, including UN Environment, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, WWF, Greenpeace, and many others<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/26/battle-dot-eco-domain-name-internet-green-groups</ref>. These groups had collaborated independently on developing a unified vision for how .eco could support the interests of the community<ref>https://dotecocouncil.org/history/</ref>. This vision formed the backbone of the community section of Big Room's .eco application. | ||
In 2012 it was revealed that four companies applied for .eco - Big Room, Donuts, | In 2012 it was revealed that four companies applied for .eco - Big Room, Donuts, planet .ECO and TLDH. Of these, only Big Room sought community designation. All applicants passed initial financial, technical and operational evaluation, except for planet .ECO, which failed, scoring 1/12 points<ref>https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/pt42qvwk2iuro7ami3jgke2i/ie-1-1710-92415-en.pdf | ||
</ref>. | </ref>. planet .ECO then sought extended evaluation, which it passed<ref>https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/eer/gl3khaf7ucheu7ro4hieth0e/ee-1-1710-92415-en.pdf</ref>. planet .ECO then filed a limited rights objection against TLDH, which failed. Big Room Inc. then elected to undertake community priority evaluation, which it passed.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/dot-eco-domain-name-environmentalists-icann-control</ref> | ||
Donuts and TLDH then filed a reconsideration request to the ICANN Board, attempting to reverse this decision. The Board rejected the request. The rejection was then appealed to an independent panel, which also rejected the attempt. No applicant contested the ICANN Board's adoption of the panel's decision. | Donuts and TLDH then filed a reconsideration request to the ICANN Board, attempting to reverse this decision. The Board rejected the request. The rejection was then appealed to an independent panel, which also rejected the attempt. No applicant contested the ICANN Board's adoption of the panel's decision. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
As a result, following a four year evaluation and appeals process, Big Room now operates the .eco registry. | As a result, following a four year evaluation and appeals process, Big Room now operates the .eco registry. | ||
=== | === planet .ECO Trademark Litigation === | ||
Separate to the .eco application contention | Separate to the .eco application contention planet .ECO filed a trademark infringement case against Big Room Inc. and Dot Eco LLC on March 2, 2012 in Los Angeles District Court. The complainant asked the court to order Big Room and Dot Eco LLC to stop infringing on their mark and force plaintiffs to withdraw their .eco gTLD applications. Dot Eco LLC responded to the complaint with an argument that the trademark was obtained illegally by planet .ECO and that it should therefore be cancelled by the court. Big Room filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction that was granted. planet .ECO withdrew the case against Dot Eco LLC. Subsequent to this litigation, five cancellation actions have been commenced against the planet .ECO mark. All were dismissed without prejudice.<ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051924&pty=CAN&eno=21 USPTO Cancellation number 92051924]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055469&pty=CAN&eno=11 USPTO Cancellation number 92055469]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92055197&pty=CAN&eno=13 USPTO Cancellation number 92055197]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=12 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref><ref>[http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92060403&pty=CAN&eno=18 USPTO Cancellation number 92060403]</ref> | ||
===European Commission Communiqué to ICANN=== | ===European Commission Communiqué to ICANN=== | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
An international governmental organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, sent a letter of complaint to ICANN in February 2013 given that they use the 'eco' acronym for their work. In its letter the ECO states that it “expresses its disapproval and non-endorsement to all the applications for the .eco gTLD and requests the ICANN and the new gTLD application evaluators to not approve these applications.”<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11934-iranian-org-not-happy-about-eco-bids Iranian Org Not Happy About Eco Bids, DomainIncite.com] Published & Retrieved 20 Feb 2013</ref>. However, neither the Economic Cooperation Organization nor any of its member states objected to any .eco application via the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee or as part of the new gTLD program. ICANN did not therefore act on this request, since it was not made through the organization's multi-stakeholder process. | An international governmental organization, the Economic Cooperation Organization, sent a letter of complaint to ICANN in February 2013 given that they use the 'eco' acronym for their work. In its letter the ECO states that it “expresses its disapproval and non-endorsement to all the applications for the .eco gTLD and requests the ICANN and the new gTLD application evaluators to not approve these applications.”<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11934-iranian-org-not-happy-about-eco-bids Iranian Org Not Happy About Eco Bids, DomainIncite.com] Published & Retrieved 20 Feb 2013</ref>. However, neither the Economic Cooperation Organization nor any of its member states objected to any .eco application via the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee or as part of the new gTLD program. ICANN did not therefore act on this request, since it was not made through the organization's multi-stakeholder process. | ||
=== | ===planet .ECO Legal Rights Objection Against Top Level Domain Holdings=== | ||
A Legal Rights Objection was filed by the applicant planet.ECO, LLC, against applicant [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]].<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ LRO Cases, WIPO.int]</ref> A Legal Rights Objection, as defined by the ICANN approved mediator, [[WIPO]], is when, "third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) [..] When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe [..] the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ LRO, WIPO.int] Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> The objection was rejected by a WIPO panelist on August 26, 2013. See: [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0053.pdf Expert Objection Legal Rights Determination PDF] . The Determination noted: "However, even assuming that, in view of the substantial identity of the applied-for string and the mark .ECO, there could be a likelihood of confusion between the two, the Panel finds that it would not be “impermissible”, since there is no evidence that the public would perceive it as a source identifier as opposed to as a descriptive term or prefix relating to ecology or environment." | A Legal Rights Objection was filed by the applicant planet.ECO, LLC, against applicant [[Top Level Domain Holdings Ltd.]].<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/cases/ LRO Cases, WIPO.int]</ref> A Legal Rights Objection, as defined by the ICANN approved mediator, [[WIPO]], is when, "third parties may file a formal objection to an application on several grounds, including, for trademark owners and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) [..] When such an objection is filed, an independent panel (comprised of one or three experts) will determine whether the applicant’s potential use of the applied-for gTLD would be likely to infringe [..] the objector’s existing trademark, or IGO name or acronym."<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/ LRO, WIPO.int] Retrieved 25 March 2013</ref> The objection was rejected by a WIPO panelist on August 26, 2013. See: [http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0053.pdf Expert Objection Legal Rights Determination PDF] . The Determination noted: "However, even assuming that, in view of the substantial identity of the applied-for string and the mark .ECO, there could be a likelihood of confusion between the two, the Panel finds that it would not be “impermissible”, since there is no evidence that the public would perceive it as a source identifier as opposed to as a descriptive term or prefix relating to ecology or environment." | ||