Changes

{{TLD}}

{{TLD}}

'''.ECO is owned and operated by [https://www.planetdoteco.com planet .ECO LLC] and Founded by two ecopreneurs, since 2008.<ref>[https://www.prweb.com/releases/the_united_states_approves_eco/prweb17627572.htm] The United States Approves .ECO</ref>'''

'''.ECO, since 2008 is owned and operated by [https://www.planetdoteco.com planet .ECO LLC] and Founded by two ecopreneurs.<ref>The United States Approves .ECO [https://www.prweb.com/releases/the_united_states_approves_eco/prweb17627572.htm] </ref>'''

.eco domains have been registered over 3,000 times in 140 countries. Small business, professionals and non-profits use .eco domains to build their brands while creating a better future for the planet.

.eco domains have been registered over 3,000 times in 140 countries. Small business, professionals and non-profits use .eco domains to build their brands while creating a better future for the planet.

In August 2009, Dot Eco LLC released a 'green paper' critiquing Big Room's approach and suggesting an investigation due to conflict of interest. Big Room did not respond to the critique other than that it was  'unfortunate'.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199802.stm Green Domain Sparks War of Words, BBCNews.com]</ref> Media characterization of the conflict generated significant press coverage, ranging from the New York Times<ref>https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/comapnies-vie-for-control-of-dot-eco/</ref> to the Financial Times<ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5fb21a4-79a6-11df-85be-00144feabdc0.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4XZRTEdfB</ref>. Following this, in 2011, Al Gore withdrew support for Dot Eco LLC. A spokesman explained that they had decided to focus on global climate issues.<ref>[http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2112810/al-gore-mikhail-gorbachev-control-eco-domain Al Gore Mikhail Gorbachev Control Eco Domain, BusinessGreen.com]</ref> Despite losing Gore's support, Dot Eco LLC maintained its intention to submit a .eco application. TLDH eventually acquired Dot Eco LLC and then applied for .eco without requesting community priority<ref>https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523</ref>.   

In August 2009, Dot Eco LLC released a 'green paper' critiquing Big Room's approach and suggesting an investigation due to conflict of interest. Big Room did not respond to the critique other than that it was  'unfortunate'.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8199802.stm Green Domain Sparks War of Words, BBCNews.com]</ref> Media characterization of the conflict generated significant press coverage, ranging from the New York Times<ref>https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/comapnies-vie-for-control-of-dot-eco/</ref> to the Financial Times<ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5fb21a4-79a6-11df-85be-00144feabdc0.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true#axzz4XZRTEdfB</ref>. Following this, in 2011, Al Gore withdrew support for Dot Eco LLC. A spokesman explained that they had decided to focus on global climate issues.<ref>[http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2112810/al-gore-mikhail-gorbachev-control-eco-domain Al Gore Mikhail Gorbachev Control Eco Domain, BusinessGreen.com]</ref> Despite losing Gore's support, Dot Eco LLC maintained its intention to submit a .eco application. TLDH eventually acquired Dot Eco LLC and then applied for .eco without requesting community priority<ref>https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1523</ref>.   

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>. Big Room Inc. co-founders, formerly employed by the UN, and these groups had collaborated independently on developing a unified vision, led by Big Room Inc., for how .eco could support the interests of their intended community<ref>https://dotecocouncil.org/history/</ref>. This vision formed the backbone of the community priority section of Big Room's .eco application and was used in the consideration to designate .eco for delegation approval.

In the interim, Big Room's proposal, created since 2007, 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>. Big Room Inc. co-founders, formerly employed by the UN, and the unaware groups had collaborated independently on developing a unified vision, led by Big Room's 2007 plan for how .eco could support the interests of their intended community<ref>https://dotecocouncil.org/history/</ref>. This vision formed the backbone of the community priority section of Big Room's .eco application and was used in the consideration to designate .eco for delegation approval.

In 2012 it was revealed that four companies applied to obtain rights to operate the .eco registry  - planet .ECO, Donuts, Big Room Inc. and TLDH. Of these, only Big Room, who began applying for the .eco community, since 2007, according to cc-founder Jacob Malthouse, sought community designation. 7 years later, all applicants passed initial financial, technical and operational evaluation, except for planet .ECO, which small business was required to provide evidence of $10,800,000 in continuing operating instrument in order to pass<ref>https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/pt42qvwk2iuro7ami3jgke2i/ie-1-1710-92415-en.pdf

In 2012 it was revealed that four companies applied to obtain rights to operate the .eco registry  - planet .ECO, Donuts, Big Room Inc. and TLDH. Of these, only Big Room, who began applying for the .eco community 5 years ahead of the gTLD open application window, according to cc-founder Jacob Malthouse, sought community designation. 7 years later, all applicants passed initial financial, technical and operational evaluation, except for planet .ECO, which US based small disadvantaged business was required to provide evidence of $10,800,000 in continuing operating instrument in order to pass<ref>https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/ier/pt42qvwk2iuro7ami3jgke2i/ie-1-1710-92415-en.pdf

</ref>. planet .ECO then sought extended evaluation, met the new requirement and 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.'s  co-created community priority was regarded superior to planet .ECO's nationwide trademark priority and passed.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/dot-eco-domain-name-environmentalists-icann-control</ref>   

</ref>. planet .ECO then sought extended evaluation, met the new requirement and 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.'s  co-created community priority was regarded superior to planet .ECO's nationwide trademark priority and passed.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/dot-eco-domain-name-environmentalists-icann-control</ref>   

planet .ECO operates the .ECO registry.   

planet .ECO operates the .ECO registry.   

=== planet .ECO and predecessor Trademark Litigation ===

=== planet .ECO, Big Room and Dot Eco LLC (TLDH) file Trademark Petition and Litigation ===

Separate to the .eco gTLD 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, with an office in Connecticut, filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction that was granted. planet .ECO and Dot Eco LLC mutually withdrew and tolled their case against each other.. Subsequent to this litigation, six cancellation actions have been commenced against the planet .ECO mark. planet .ECO prevailed in all cases and two were Dismiss with 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 gTLD 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, with an office in Connecticut, filed a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction that was granted. planet .ECO and Dot Eco LLC mutually withdrew and tolled their case against each other.. Subsequent to this litigation, six cancellation actions were brought against the planet .ECO, which prevailed in all cases.  In its 4 litigation proceeding against planet .ECO on December 2016, Big Room falsely claimed planet .ECO committed fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office and on May 7, 2019 the case was Dismiss with 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===  

=== Conclusion ===

=== Conclusion ===

There is no evidence supporting the Delegation of the .eco gTLD:   

There is no evidence supporting the Delegation of the .eco gTLD:   

* Delegation record: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/eco.html - provides evidence of designation but not the delegation.

* Delegation record: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/eco.html - provides evidence of a designation but not the delegation of .eco.

* Registry agreement: https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en - is contractually required in accordance with May 31, 2012 Solicitation Number: SA1301-12-RP-0043, Incorporated by reference into July 2, 2012 Federal Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 for delegation request of .eco.  

* Registry agreement: https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en - is contractually required in accordance with May 31, 2012 Solicitation Number: SA1301-12-RP-0043, Incorporated by reference into July 2, 2012 Federal Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 for delegation request of .eco.