Intel: Difference between revisions

Line 107:

==ICANN Involvement==

On October 13 1999, Scott B. Schwartz, Intel Corporation's Senior Attorney for Trademarks & Brands, provided comments regarding the Accompanying Rules, and Provider of [[ICANN]]'s Draft [[UDRP]]. Schwartz commented that ICANN demonstrated a positive advancement towards the protection of trademarks in cyberspace by posting the UDRP to its website; he believed, however, that certain sections needed revision~~, including:~~

On October 13 1999, Scott B. Schwartz, Intel Corporation's Senior Attorney for Trademarks & Brands, provided comments regarding the Accompanying Rules, and Provider of [[ICANN]]'s Draft [[UDRP]]. Schwartz commented that ICANN demonstrated a positive advancement towards the protection of trademarks in cyberspace by posting the UDRP to its website; he believed, however, that certain sections needed revision.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00095.html Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection]</ref>

* '''Section 4(a)(iii)'''- the word "and" which appears between "registered" and "is" is recommended to be stricken and replaced with the word "or," so it would read like this: ''your domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.'' Schwartz explained that the recommendation was made so as to clear situations where alleged warehousing are considered to be "Applicable Disputes." He emphasized that cybersquatters are increasingly registering famous trademarks in bulk without creating active websites. He also explained that the current provision is not consistent with provisions of 4(b), which states, ''registration of a mark can be in bad faith and, therefore, subject to the policy.''

*'''Section 4(b)(i)'''- Schwartz commented that in this provision, the burden of proof required by the phrase "primarily for the purpose of" is stringent for a complainant. Complainants are required to establish the intentions of domain name owners when they registered the domain names. In addition, Intel recommended to insert the words "registration of the" before the word "domain" to the phrase in the provision which reads: ''or valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.'' The suggested revision will establish the cost for website development should be included when owners are demanding unreasonable and excessive fees to transfer a domain name.

* '''Section 4(b)(ii)''' Schwartz suggested ICANN to clarify the term "pattern" and remove the word "conduct" in the provision, which reads: ''provided that a pattern of such conduct has been established on your part.'' He also proposed to inserts the words "the facts indicate" before a pattern thus, the propose revision would read: ''(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in acorresponding domain name, provided that the facts indicate a pattern of

~~such conduct;'' The propose amendment will clarify that the panel may be able to conclude based on facts or circumstances presented in the case that there is a pattern of past misconduct.~~

* '''Section 4(b)(iv)'''- revision is recommended

* '''Section 4(c) (Preamble)'''- Intel proposed that the circumstances enumerated in 4 (c) should be treated as factors and not conclusive proof of legitimate rights.

* '''Section 4(c)(i)'''- the phrase "demonstrable preparations to use" will be used by cybersquatters as a loophole to abuse trademarks

* '''Section 4(c)(ii)'''- the entire provision is recommended by Intel to be deleted.

* '''Rule 2(a)'''- the wordings of the provision creates undue burden to providers by increasing their administration level and transaction costs.

* '''Provider Selection'''- letter d of the Staff Report is the most appropriate option to use<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00095.html Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection]</ref>

On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. The company was disappointed that many of the strategies recommended by the prior [[Implementation Recommendation Team]] (IRT) were not incorporated into the STI Team's report or any draft of the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook|applicant guidebook]]. They noted that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of interworking mechanisms, which included a globally protected marks list, and that by leaving them out in the STI report, the effectiveness of any one measure was severely compromised. Intel urged [[ICANN]] to reconsider incorporating some of the IRT recommendations. Meanwhile, Intel acknowledged the benefits of a [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as necessary protection tool for trademarks. The company suggested that its use and scope be expanded and that it should be used during new the gTLD pre-launch and during [[UDRP|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URSS) and [[Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy]] (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. They also proposed that information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse be shared with [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|registrars]], for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearinghouse should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agreed that it would be a beneficial tool as long as the process was made less expensive and quicker.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref>

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ==ICANN Involvement==
-On October 13 1999, Scott B. Schwartz, Intel Corporation's Senior Attorney for Trademarks & Brands, provided comments regarding the Accompanying Rules, and Provider of [[ICANN]]'s Draft [[UDRP]]. Schwartz commented that ICANN demonstrated a positive advancement towards the protection of trademarks in cyberspace by posting the UDRP to its website; he believed, however, that certain sections needed revision, including:
+On October 13 1999, Scott B. Schwartz, Intel Corporation's Senior Attorney for Trademarks & Brands, provided comments regarding the Accompanying Rules, and Provider of [[ICANN]]'s Draft [[UDRP]]. Schwartz commented that ICANN demonstrated a positive advancement towards the protection of trademarks in cyberspace by posting the UDRP to its website; he believed, however, that certain sections needed revision.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00095.html Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection]</ref>
-* '''Section 4(a)(iii)'''- the word "and" which appears between "registered" and "is"  is recommended to be stricken and replaced with the word "or," so it would read like this: ''your domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.'' Schwartz explained that the recommendation was made so as to clear situations where alleged warehousing are considered to be "Applicable Disputes." He emphasized that cybersquatters are increasingly registering famous trademarks in bulk without creating active websites. He also explained that the current provision is not consistent with provisions of 4(b), which states, ''registration of a mark can be in bad faith and, therefore, subject to the policy.''
-*'''Section 4(b)(i)'''- Schwartz commented that in this provision, the burden of proof required by the phrase "primarily for the purpose of" is stringent for a complainant. Complainants are required to establish the intentions of domain name owners when they registered the domain names. In addition, Intel recommended to insert the words "registration of the" before the word "domain" to the phrase in the provision which reads: ''or valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.'' The suggested revision will establish the cost for website development should be included when owners are demanding unreasonable and excessive fees to transfer a domain name.
-* '''Section 4(b)(ii)''' Schwartz suggested ICANN to clarify the term "pattern" and remove the word "conduct" in the provision, which reads: ''provided that a pattern of such conduct has been established on your part.'' He also proposed to inserts the words "the facts indicate" before a pattern thus, the propose revision would read: ''(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in acorresponding domain name, provided that the facts indicate a pattern of
-such conduct;'' The propose amendment will clarify that the panel may be able to conclude based on facts or circumstances presented in the case that there is a pattern of past misconduct.
-* '''Section 4(b)(iv)'''- revision is recommended
-* '''Section 4(c) (Preamble)'''- Intel proposed that the circumstances enumerated in 4 (c) should be treated as factors and not conclusive proof of legitimate rights.
-* '''Section 4(c)(i)'''- the phrase "demonstrable preparations to use" will be used by cybersquatters as a loophole to abuse trademarks
-* '''Section 4(c)(ii)'''- the entire provision is recommended by Intel to be deleted.
-* '''Rule 2(a)'''- the wordings of the provision creates undue burden to providers by increasing their administration level and transaction costs.
-* '''Provider Selection'''- letter d of the Staff Report is the most appropriate option to use<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00095.html Comments on the Draft UDRP, Accompanying Rules, and Provider Selection]</ref>
 On January 26, 2010, Intel expressed its disappointment regarding the [[Special Trademark Issues]] Working Team (STI) Report on Trademark Protection on New [[gTLD]]s. The company was disappointed that many of the strategies recommended by the prior [[Implementation Recommendation Team]] (IRT) were not incorporated into the STI Team's report or any draft of the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook|applicant guidebook]]. They noted that the IRT's recommendations effectively created a system of interworking mechanisms, which included a globally protected marks list, and that by leaving them out in the STI report, the effectiveness of any one measure was severely compromised. Intel urged [[ICANN]] to reconsider incorporating some of the IRT recommendations. Meanwhile, Intel acknowledged the benefits of a [[Trademark Clearinghouse]] as necessary protection tool for trademarks. The company suggested that its use and scope be expanded and that it should be used during new the gTLD pre-launch and during [[UDRP|Uniform Rapid Suspension System]] (URSS) and [[Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy]] (UDRP) proceedings for all TLDs, including existing ones. They also proposed that information submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse be shared with [[Registry|registries]] and [[Registrar|registrars]], for the purpose of supporting RPM procedures, unless otherwise authorized by trademark owners. Intel believed that fees to submit trademarks to the Trademark Clearinghouse should be minimal. Regarding the URS process, Intel agreed that it would be a beneficial tool as long as the process was made less expensive and quicker.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/sti-report-2009/msg00068.html Intel Corporation Comments on STI Report]</ref>