• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

New gTLDs, New Problems

Submitted by Amer Raja on June 16, 2012 – 5:32 PM5491No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F06%2F16%2Fnew-gtlds-new-problems%2FNew+gTLDs%2C+New+Problems2012-06-16+21%3A32%3A27Amer+Rajahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5491

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that, while 91% of attorneys responsible for protecting trademarks were aware of the new gTLD system, only 36% of them had actually read the gTLD Applicant Guidebook in anticipation of new trademark concerns.  The study, conducted by Melbourne IT Digital Preparedness Services, attempted to gauge the “knowledge, preparedness, and resource plans” of trademark attorneys across the United States.  While these statistics may not have come as a shock to some, the disparity in levels of preparation will undoubtedly impact brand owners.  For those attorneys unfamiliar with the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, a long process of dissecting rules and remedy procedures lay ahead; on the other hand, while other attorneys may be familiar with the gTLD Applicant Guidebook they may nevertheless face issues with navigating the murky ICANN rules.

 

The new gTLD program will “revolutionize” the web according to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  gTLD’s or “generic top-level domains” are the string of letters that follow the second “dot.”  There are currently twenty-two current top-level domains on the internet, such as “.com” and “.net.”  The new gTLD program aims to drastically enhance the web-browsing experience by increasing the number of top-level domains and is envisioned as a means for structuring and organizing the Internet.

 

The gTLD has been the subject of a great deal of discussion over the past few years, including those held in a couple of IP Brief blogs.  However, it was not until this past week that ICANN closed the application period and finally revealed the 1,930 applications for gTLD’s that various businesses and organizations had submitted.  Some of these proposed top-level domains merely reflected brand names like “.samsung,” while others, such as “.radio,” sought to open up registration to all members of the public even remotely interested in radio stations.  The next stage in the gTLD program will consist of ICANN reviewing the 1,930 applications and entertaining comments and objections about certain TLDs.  While many of the applications that were submitted involved the same gTLD string, there are roughly 1,000 unique proposed domains; this means that ICANN will have a long and arduous task ahead as it attempts to determine which gTLDs to roll out in 2013.  This also means that ICANN and trademark owners will butt heads now, more than ever before, over the gTLD system as claims of an anticompetitive practices increase.  Trademark owners, however, will likely focus much of their attention on two issues in particular – open registries and disparaging gTLDs.

 

Trademark owners need to be especially cautious of gTLD applications that are aimed at creating “open registries.”  Although ICANN is just gearing up to review gTLD applications, it is imperative that brand owners stay ahead of the curve and/or comment on gTLDs that may be harmful to the industry or individual consumer.  An “open registry” allows individuals unofficially associated with a certain term/group, or members of the public at large to register domain names under a gTLD.  “Open registries” pose a significant threat to trademark owners in particular, because the propensity for cybersquatting and abuse is far greater in a less regulated TLD.  Depending on the number of generic open registries that survive the ICANN application review period, a large number of brand owners may end up filing defensive registrations.

Related to the “open registry” problem, trademark owners will likely need to pay a great deal of attention towards registries that involve disparaging terms or terms that may tarnish the reputation of a business or mark.  For instance, registries that contain adult content may allow individuals to register domain names that contain trademarks.  Even assuming that some of these registries are restricted (i.e. there is either a screening or qualifying process involved), certain registries like “.sucks” and “.adult” would nevertheless be a problem for many brand owners.  As a result, many trademark owners will likely need to be very quick to defensively register domain names in order to avoid the expense of filing complaints against many individuals.  In the end, however, it appears that brand owners will likely end up bearing the brunt of the new gTLD system’s risks, since they will either need to defensively register domain names or have to deal with far more cybersquatters.

 

However, all is not lost; trademark attorneys can save their clients some major costs just by reading the gTLD Applicant Guidebook well before the eve of the new trademarks debut.  ICANN, INTA, and the IPC have worked diligently over the past months to try to create a system whereby trademark owners can reduce their costs in dealing with the new gTLD system.  Although many trademark attorneys were underprepared for the “.com” boom in the 1990’s and only registered one or two domains on behalf of their clients, such a lapse in preparation this time around will likely result in inexcusable expenses and may cause certain firms to lose business.  While the Applicant Guidebook does not provide the whole picture with regards to protecting trademarks in the new gTLD system, it does provide a good enough background for attorneys to better serve their clients in the long run.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Amer Raja

Amer Raja is a 2013 J.D. Candidate at the Washington College of Law. Amer is a Senior Blogger for the Intellectual Property Brief, Student Attorney for the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic and the President of the Society for Dispute Resolution. Amer competed in the Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court competition in February 2012 and placed third in the East Regional Competition in New York City. He is also a competing member of the ICC International Commercial Mediation team, and will be going to Paris in February 2013 to compete. Amer is currently working for a boutique trademark litigation firm, Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP, in Washington, D.C. He has also worked in the past for the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, American Bar Association, American Board of Pediatrics, and the NCCSAS. Amer has a passion and demonstrated interest in patent and trademark litigation, international trade law, and commercial litigation.

Amer Raja has written 17 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

High Court Issues Unanimous Decision in NFL Logo and Trademark Case Smartphone Software Duking it Out.  Again. Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million Canada's Copyright Modernization Act Tries to Please Everyone, Succeeds in Pleasing No One J.C. Penney Creates New Ways to Make Money after its Branding Fail Righthaven Loses Denver Court Battle Brilliant New Study Finds People Visit Websites That Facilitate Piracy Short Circuit: November 18 - 24, 2012 The New York Times Throws Down the Gauntlet on Patent Reform Limited Guidance by Supreme Court Challenges USPTO
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License