The 36th  ICANN meeting in Seoul  is not yet finished, however, from the IP and Trademark perspective which is at the centre of our attention we are tempted to summarize it as follows: “one step forward (IDNs extensions to be launched soon, namely domain extensions in foreign characters, such as .рф for the Russian Federation…), two steps backward (lack of consensus on adequate protection of Trademark rights in the new gTLDs processs to further delay progresses in that direction).

To the question “where are we now in terms of Trademark Protection in the new gTLDs“, a clear response has been given by J.Scott Evans (Yahoo!), at the meeting of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) of the GNSO:

1) there is an ICANN commitment to adequately address issues of Trademark Protection related to the launch of new gTLDs

2) ICANN was provided by the IRT with a final report which was a compromise, and which followed solutions adopted in previous new TLDs launches.

3) Unfortunately, the latest version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG3) seems to have  more or less emptied the IRT’s report from that substance, omitting the IP Clearinghouse and mentioning the URS only as ” good practice”!

The IP Community needs the URS to be compulsory. Should this not be the case, trademark issues with new gTLDs  will not be solved.

We are thus in a situation where the baby on its IP Clearinghouse and URS parts is given back to the GNSO for reconsideration. In other words, we will have at least a version 4 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, and a further delay in the launch of the new gTLDs.

DAG3 is open for public comments only until 22nd November 2009: YOU are concerned, make YOUR VOICE heard in the Public Forum debate, there!

Sylvain Hirsch

Zbynek Loebl, member of the ADR.EU Advisory Board, invites you to meet this growing up dispute resolution center…

Zbynek Loebl, DR

Part 2: ADRE.EU : A Multi-lingual on-line DR platform for consumer disputes

ADR.EU prepares a European on-line DR system for the resolution of consumer disputes arising from Internet transactions.

How can it work?

For example, we have a consumer from Barcelona who bought a product on-line from a Finnish provider and is not satisfied with the product.

So the consumer would file a complaint on-line in Spanish; the Finnish on-line seller would be able to read this complaint in Finnish and communicate with the Spanish consumer in Finnish. The consumer would communicate back in Spanish.

If the consumer and the seller do not resolve the issues among themselves without involvement of third parties, they proceed to an arbitration/mediation. The decision will be provided in Spanish, Finnish and English and will be implemented by the on-line provider without delay, otherwise the on-line provider will loose the right to use the system (and consumers will shop elsewhere).

Why we think there is an interest in such a solution?

Within EU, only 5% of Internet users shop across national borders although there are substantial differences in prices of the same or similar products and services in different areas of the EU.

It is believed that one of the reasons for such a low percentage of cross-border shopers is a lack of trust of European consumers in cross-border on-line transactions. Multi-lingual ODR will increase the trust of consumers in on-line environment and increase business of the on-line providers.

At present more and more on-line providers begin to trade in multi-lingual environments. Third-party DR system will supplement their multi-lingual trading systems.

Internet is becoming multi-lingual. The introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) is going to substantially support Internet usage in countries outside EU like India and China. These countries need multi-lingual on-line DR just as Europe and the project can be extended to cover Asia as well.

Our project aims at addressing these current needs of the on-line trade.

How will the system be financed?

After its implementation the system should be self-financing mainly through small regular contributions from on-line providers who subscribe to the system for the resolution of their consumer disputes. Consumers will pay a nominal fee if they proceed to mediation/arbitration.

The on-line providers can advertise a European trust mark (e.g. ADR.EU) which would indicate to their costumers that potential consumer issues will be resolved quickly and efficiently via the ODR system.

Where are we today?

We finalize our budget for the building of the system and form our international preparatory team. We have support of the European Commission and European Parliament. Big Internet players will participate in the project. We plan to start the development stage of the project from 1 January 2010.

Zbynek Loebl

Zbynek Loebl, member of the ADR.EU Advisory Board, invites you to meet this growing up dispute resolution center…

Zbynek Loebl, DR

Part 1 : ADR.EU and Domain Dispute

ADR.EU is a dispute resolution (DR) center attached to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC).

ADR.EU is the only DR provider for disputes related to .eu domain names. ADR.EU administers these disputes in 21 EU languages.

In addition, ADR.EU is a UDRP provider and the only UDRP provider authorized by ICANN to provide only electronic UDRP services.

Why a party wishing to file UDRP Complaints should consider ADR.EU?

• A possibility to file Complaints only electronically using a simple authentication tool called the ChessCard, or to file electronically and mail to ADR.EU only a signed signature page in hardcopy;

• Have all UDRP cases in which you are involved organized in one electronic Master File with easy access from all around the world;

• If you are not familiar with UDRP, you may have a draft of your Complaint checked preliminarily for administrative compliance by ADR.EU before the Complaint is formally filed and this way you save time after the actual filing;

• ADR.EU enables a new type of Compliants – so called Class Complaints – by which more unrelated Complainants can file a single Complaint against a single Respondent in relation to multiple disputed domain names;

• Payment on-line by credit cards;

• Everybody can test the platform and learn quickly how to use it on our testing platform available also at www.adr.eu.

What are the ADR.EU plans regarding domain name disputes?

ADR.EU supports the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proposal for the new top level domains (gTLDs). We want to compete to become one of URS providers after ICANN approves the URS.

Regarding UDRP, ADR.EU is going to propose a new specific procedure called the Expedited (UDRP) Decision. Expedited Decision would enable much cheaper and faster UDRP procedure in clear cases where no Response is filed. At the moment, our draft is being considered by ICANN.

Gradually, we would like to implement our UDRP platform in more languages (so far only English is implemented).

We would like to offer our on-line platforms to country-code domain name (ccTLD) registries as their possible DR solution:

• Our platform for .eu disputes is multi-lingual;

• It provides save on-line DR platform;

• For ccTLD disputes we can add one additional and significant remedy – monetary awards;

• The decisions in ccTLD disputes will be in the form of standard arbitral awards with efficient international enforcement (NY Convention).

Zbynek Loebl

Mais quelle mouche peut bien avoir piqué DENIC, le Registre du .de ?

De manière tout à fait inattendue, sans procéder à aucune annonce ou concertation préalable, DENIC a annoncé le 15 octobre une modification en profondeur de leurs restrictions en matière de nommage.

Ainsi, à partir du 23 octobre à 9 h du matin, heure de Berlin, seront possibles les enregistrements de noms de domaine d’un et de deux caractères qui étaient impossibles jusqu’à maintenant.

De plus, il n’y a presque plus aucune restrictions sur le nommage des noms de domaines de trois caractères ou plus. Ainsi, jusqu’à présent étaient interdits les noms de domaine purement digitaux, les noms de domaine reprenant d’autres ccTLD, ainsi que ceux reprenant des plaques d’immatriculation.

A partir de vendredi donc, nous aurons le plaisir de pouvoir enregistrer com.de, 999.de ou encore 123456.de

Sauf que voilà, deux problèmes se posent :

Tout d’abord, aucune sunrise periode n’est prévue. N’importe qui peut enregistrer n’importe quel nom de domaine sur la base du premier arrivé, premier servi. Autant dire que les serveurs du DENIC vont enregistrer une forte surcharge vendredi matin.

Ensuite, le coût de ces nouveaux noms de domaine est particulièrement élevé, sur le principe de “ce qui est rare est cher“.

Si le Registre mexicain avait fait fort en matière de prix de nom de domaine, cela semble aujourd’hui dérisoire face aux exigences des registrars du DENIC qui réclament plusieurs dizaines de milliers d’euros pour enregistrer un nom de domaine d’un ou de deux caractères. (Pour rappel, un .de « classique » ne coute que quelques dizaines d’euros).

Il va sans dire qu’IP Twins se tient  prêt à assister dans ses démarches quiconque serait intéressé par l’achat d’un nom de domaine concerné par cette réforme.

Il convient toutefois de s’interroger sur la nature d’un tel revirement du DENIC. Le Registre allemand, le (deuxième) plus gros Registre  de ccTLDs, est il en difficulté financière ? Ce soudain revirement en matière de règles de nommage cache t il un besoin urgent de liquidités ? Nous sommes en droit de nous interroger sur ce point.

Mais plus intéressant, ce changement brusque de règlementation montre à quel point la veille réglementaire qu’effectuent des professionnels de la gestion des noms de domaines comme IP Twins est une plus value pour leurs clients qui sont ainsi très rapidement avertis en cas de changement brusque de règlementation. Ceux-ci peuvent alors prendre les décisions qui s’imposent dans les temps impartis par d’imprévisibles Registres de ccTLDs.

Adrien Palumbo

On se souvient qu’un des arguments du projet non abouti  à ce jour de nouvelle extension .XXX (soutenu par “ICM Registry“) était de regrouper sous une extension immédiatement reconnaissable et identifiable les nombreuses œuvres de l’esprit que sont les sites web dédiés aux adultes.

Ainsi, nous disait on, les tendres têtes blondes ne risqueront plus de surfer par hasard sur Blanche Neige pour adultes en recherchant leur Blanche Neige, la vraie héroîne des contes de notre enfance. Dot XXX donc pour séparer sur le Réseau l’ivraie pornographique du bon grain, tout comme les films classés X sont une branche séparée du reste de la production cinématographique.
Sur ce débat, voir i.a. le site d’ICM,   ,les commentaires de Circle Id , Wired , The Register .

Sur les mêmes bases, à savoir respect du 1er Amendement (si le futur Registre est Américain) et identification immédiate d’une industrie donnée (la contrefaçon) pour protéger un public fragile et sensible (les titulaires de marques de produits de luxe, de cosmétiques, de produits pharmaceutiques etc), nous nous interrogeons sur le point de savoir si à l’heure du “créons des nouveaux TLDs tous azimuts”, l’un (ou plusieurs, pourquoi pas) des postulants à l’une des nouvelles extensions aura l’idée de déposer un projet .FAKE?

Fantaisiste, cette idée? Vu le nombre de sites et de noms de domaine consacrés au vrai faux, peut être pas tellement.
Une petite recherche (exercice que nous pratiquons volontiers, à IP Twins) sur les noms de domaine des extensions génériques plus quelques ccTLDs (France, US, Russie, Autriche, Espagne) commençant par “FAKE” révèle l’existence de plus de 6000 résultats, parmi lesquels 21 noms de domaine .fr qui, ne correspondant pas à des marques, ne seraient probablement pas éligibles à l’enregistrement sous .FAKE (en effet, qui pourrait s’émouvoir d’un <fakemilkshake.fr>?).

Par contre on relève les noms suivants (liste non exhaustive) qui seraient eux, certainement éligibles:

fake-brands.com
fake-cigarettes.com
fakechanel.asia
fake-chanel-sunglasses.com
fake-louis-vuitton.com
fake-louis.com
fake-louisvuitton.com
fake-replica-longines-watch.com (des “fake replica” deviennent ils des produits authentiques?)
fake-rolex-replica-watches-replicas.com
fake-rolex-watch.com
fakerolexwatches.us
fakechloebags.com
fakechopardwatches.com
fakeoreal.com
fakerolexwatchesreplicasfakerolexwatchesreplicaswatchesreplicas.com (sic!)

Si d’aventure, un tel projet venait à être proposé, puis accepté, nul doute que la Communauté des titulaires de droits de P.I. et de leurs représentants saurait l’apprécier et le traiter à sa juste valeur…peut être en enregistrant à titre conservatoire s’entend …

brands.fake
chanel.fake
louisvuitton.fake
rolex.fake
etc…

et les registrars (aussi communément appelés “bureaux d’enregistrement” sous nos latitudes) ne suivraient certainement pas avec:

specialisedin IP.fake
newextension.fake
domain.fake
etc

Mais tout ceci n’est bien sûr (pour l’instant) qu’une fiction.

Sylvain Hirsch

[Article de Philip Corwin (ICA, Internet Commerce Association) on Fri, 10/02/2009 ]

ICANN Tech Study suggests delaying gTLDs until 2011-2012 b/c of concerns about DNS stability.

(c) http://pitibou.p.i.pic.centerblog.net

A recently issued, ICANN-funded technical study makes a strong case for delaying the introduction of new gTLDs and other root zone changes until domain name system  (DNS) security in the form of DNSSEC (the “signed root”) has been implemented to help assure the long-term safety and security of the DNS.

The 85-page study, “Scaling the Root: Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone” was
published on September 18th    (available there).

La conclusion de l’article (à la lexture intégrale duquel vous pouvez accéder ici) peut laisser perplexe quant à la date d’ouverture des vannes:

Of course, it now appears unlikely that the application window for new gTLDs will open before the second half of 2010, which would mean that none would likely come online before the first part of 2011.  If ICANN can implement DNSSEC in 2010 then a 1-2 year delay in adding new TLDs to the root would not greatly push back the date by which new gTLDs can commence operation without risking DNS destabilization. That assumes, of course, that ICANN’s new operational dynamic under the AOC does not catalyze additional resistance to the introduction of unlimited new gTLDs.

Sylvain Hirsch