3,197
edits
Changes
no edit summary
}}
}}
'''.eco''' has over 3,000 domains in 140 countries. Small business, professionals and non-profits use .eco to build their brands while creating a better future for the planet.
'''.eco''' is a [[gTLD]] for
====== Search for and register .eco domains now at: [https://www.go.eco/ www.go.eco] ======
====== Search for and register .eco domains now at: [https://www.go.eco/ www.go.eco] ======
=== Planet.ECO Trademark Litigation ===
=== Planet.ECO Trademark Litigation ===
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>
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 the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern California. 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 for lack of jurisdiction. That motion was granted. Planet.ECO subsequently 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===
The [[European Commission]] flagged all applications for .eco outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes. Just after [[ICANN]]'s [[GAC]] issued its Early Warnings, which are advice given from one GAC member country to an applicant warning it of potential issues within its application, the [[European Commission]] issued a letter to all applicants within the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]]. The letter highlights 58 applications that "could raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation .. and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union." It notes a desire to open a dialogue with each offending applicant. Big Room entered into a dialogue and as a result of those conversations - and in dialogue with the environmental community - updated its PIC spec to include specific references to issues raised by the Commission. The Commission specifically noted that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>
The [[European Commission]] flagged all applications for .eco outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes. Just after [[ICANN]]'s [[GAC]] issued its Early Warnings, which are advice given from one GAC member country to an applicant warning it of potential issues within its application, the [[European Commission]] issued a letter to all applicants within the [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]]. The letter highlights 58 applications that "could raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation .. and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union." It notes a desire to open a dialogue with each offending applicant. Big Room entered into a dialogue and as a result of those conversations - and in dialogue with the environmental community - updated its PIC spec to include specific references to issues raised by the Commission. The Commission specifically noted that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>
===Economic Cooperation Organization Complaint to ICANN===
===Economic Cooperation Organization Complaint to ICANN===
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===
===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> The objection was rejected by a [[WIPO]] panelist on August 26, 2013.<ref name="wipo">[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/domains/lro/docs/lro2013-0053.pdf Expert Determination - Legal Rights Objection, planet.ECO, LLC v. TLDH PDF]</ref> 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."
===Big Room Inc. Community Priority Evaluation ===
===Big Room Inc. Community Priority Evaluation ===
On February 20, 2015 Big Room Inc. also submitted a reconsideration request <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-2-big-room-inc-2015-02-23-en]</ref> to ICANN pertaining to delays associated with the [[Cooperative Engagement Process]]. The request stated: "Big Room Inc. (“Big Room”) respectfully requests Board reconsideration of ICANN staff inaction in connection with its failure to terminate the ongoing Cooperative Engagement Process (“CEP”) pertaining to the .ECO generic top-level domain (gTLD) subject matter." The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.
On February 20, 2015 Big Room Inc. also submitted a reconsideration request <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-2-big-room-inc-2015-02-23-en]</ref> to ICANN pertaining to delays associated with the [[Cooperative Engagement Process]]. The request stated: "Big Room Inc. (“Big Room”) respectfully requests Board reconsideration of ICANN staff inaction in connection with its failure to terminate the ongoing Cooperative Engagement Process (“CEP”) pertaining to the .ECO generic top-level domain (gTLD) subject matter." The request was withdrawn prior to ICANN Board consideration of the matter as a result of the CEP being terminated.
Subsequently, an [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en independent review panel] was convened to consider whether the ICANN Board Governance Committee acted appropriately in issuing a [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf final determination] denying Little Birch, LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited's reconsideration request.
Subsequently, an [[independent review panel]] was convened to consider whether the ICANN Board Governance Committee acted appropriately in issuing a final determination<ref>[[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-little-birch-minds-machines-18nov14-en.pdf ICANN - Final Determination, Nov. 18, 2014]</ref> denying planet.ECO's reconsideration request.<ref>[[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/various-v-icann-eco-hotel-2015-09-02-en ICANN Case Record - .eco and .hotel]</ref>
A hearing was held on December 7 2015. A final declaration was issued on February 12 2016. <ref name="IRP">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-despegar-online-et-al-final-declaration-12feb16-en.pdf</ref> The determination upheld Big Room's .eco application CPE evaluation result, noting: "And, "[a]s for the .eco IRP, it is clear that the Reconsideration Request [14-46] was misconceived and was little more than an attempt to appeal the CPE decision. Again, therefore, the .eco IRP was always going to fail." (Final Declaration at ¶ 156.)"<ref name="IRP" />
The ICANN Board adopted the final declaration March 10 2016 <ref>https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-03-10-en</ref>. After a board member expressed concern that the March 10th adoption of the final declaration might have been subject to procedural irregularities, the ICANN Board issued a second resolution on May 27, 2016 reconfirming adoption of the final declaration.<ref>[https://features.icann.org/reconfirming-board-resolution-hotel-and-eco-irp-declaration Reconfirming the Board Resolution regarding .hotel and .eco, May 27, 2016]</ref>
The .eco gTLD was delegated by IANA on August 29th, 2016 with Big Room Inc. as the Sponsoring Organization.
=== Delegation to Big Room Inc. ===
The .eco gTLD was delegated by IANA on August 29th, 2016 with [[Big Room Inc.]] as the [[Sponsoring Organization]].<ref>[https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/eco.html IANA Delegation Record]</ref><ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en Registry Agreement - Big Room Inc. & ICANN]</ref>
==References==
==References==