Frequently Asked Questions About 'Existing Legal Rights Objections'

Trademark owners who believe that a potential new top-level domain would infringe its rights may want to consider filing an "Existing Legal Rights" objection. Here are some frequently asked questions about this process.

What is the definition of an "Existing Legal Rights Objection"?

According to ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook, an Existing Legal Rights Objection is an "objection that the string comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law."

The Guidebook includes important additional interpretation guidance for panelists deciding these objections, so those who file an Existing Legal Rights Objection should become very familiar with these principles and draft their objections accordingly.

Who can file a Legal Rights Objection?

The Guidebook broadly says: "A rightsholder has standing to file a legal rights objection." Note that all filed objections must include "[a] statement of the objector’s basis for standing; that is, why the objector believes it meets the standing requirements to object."

When can an Existing Legal Rights Objection be filed?

The Guidebook says that "[t]he objection filing period will open after ICANN posts the list of complete applications... and will last for approximately 7 months." ICANN has announced that it intends to post the list of complete applications on June 13, 2012; therefore, the last date for filing objections would be approximately January 13, 2013. Note that there will be "a two-week window of time between the posting of the Initial Evaluation results and the close of the objection filing period."

Where are Legal Rights Objections filed?

Existing Legal Rights Objections will be administered by the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which has published a detailed website about the process here: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/

What rules are applicable to an Existing Legal Rights Objection?

The WIPO Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution apply to disputes filed pursuant to an Existing Legal Rights Objection.

What language is used for proceedings under Existing Legal Rights Objections?

All objections must be filed in English.

What are the fees for filing an Existing Legal Rights Objection?

In addition to any legal or other fees that an objecting party may face, WIPO's filing fees for an Existing Legal Rights Objection begin at $10,000 (U.S. dollars). This includes $2,000 for WIPO as the dispute resolution service provider and $8,000 for a single-member panelist appointed to decide the dispute.  Additional fees apply for three-member panels; and lower fees apply in the event of multiple objections filed to single applications or multiple objections filed by the same objector to multiple applications.

A gTLD applicant is required to pay the same fees and, as with all gTLD objections, "[u]pon the termination of the proceedings, after the Panel has rendered its Expert Determination, the DRSP [Dispute Resolution Service Provider, that is, WIPO] shall refund to the prevailing party, as determined by the Panel, its advance payment(s) of Costs."

What should an objector include in filing an Existing Legal Rights Objection?

ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook provides very little helpful guidance about what an objector should include in its filing. Specifically, the Guidebook says that objections should include "[a] statement giving the specific ground upon which the objection is being filed" and "[a] detailed explanation of the validity of the objection and why it should be upheld." However, the Guidebook includes important criteria for panelists evaluating Existing Legal Rights Objections; accordingly, objectors should familiarize themselves with these criteria and draft their objections with the criteria in mind. Generally, the criteria include the following:

• whether the potential use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark or service mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym (as identified in the treaty establishing the organization), or
• unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym, or
• otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied-for gTLD and the objector’s mark or IGO name or acronym

Additional detail -- including factors to be considered by panelists evaluating the above criteria -- is set forth in the Guidebook.

What is the maximum length of an objection filed under an Existing Legal Rights Objection?

As with all objections to new gTLDs, objections based on an Existing Legal Rights Objection is limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages, whichever is less (excluding attachments).

Does a gTLD applicant have to respond to an Existing Legal Rights Objection?

No. An applicant can negotiate a settlement to an objection (resulting in withdrawal of the application or the objection), file a response (see details below) or withdraw (in which case the objector will prevail by default).

If an applicant files a response to an Existing Legal Rights Objection, when must it be filed, what should it include and how long can it be?

A response must be filed within 30 calendar days of WIPO's notice of the objection. According to the Guidebook, the response should include "[a] point-by-point response to the claims made by the objector" and "[a]ny copies of documents that it considers to be a basis for the response." Like objections, responses are limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages, whichever is less (excluding attachments).

How are documents filed, and will in-person hearings be held for Existing Legal Rights Objections?

Documents should be filed electronically, and, as in all objection proceedings, "[d]isputes will usually be resolved without an in-person hearing. The panel may decide to hold such a hearing only in extraordinary circumstances." Note that this language is similar to that set forth in the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) (which says there shall be no in-person hearings except "as an exceptional matter" as decided by a panel), and that no in-person hearings have ever been held under the UDRP (which went into effect in 1999).

10 Things Trademark Owners Should Do on ICANN's Domain Name 'Reveal Day'

By Doug Isenberg After years of planning, months of applying and weeks of delays, ICANN is set to disclose the identities of approximately 2,000 new applied-for global top-level domain names (gTLDs) on June 13, 2012 -- a date known as "Reveal Day."

ICANN has stated that the application results will be posted on Reveal Day here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results

Reveal Day is likely to create a lot of confusion among all except those who have followed these developments most closely. So, in anticipation of widespread misunderstandings among trademark owners, the press and Internet users in general, here is a short list of the most important things to do on Reveal Day:

1. Review the list of new gTLDs published by ICANN. If past performance is any indication, there will likely be some technical delays in accessing all of the published information, especially on Reveal Day itself. However, despite everyone's curiosity, there is no urgency in gaining access to the information immediately (and some of it already has been voluntarily disclosed by applicants), so any slight delays should not create any meaningful concerns.
2. Don't panic. Remember that no gTLD on the application list has been approved. That is, no new gTLDs will become operational on Reveal Day. And, before any new gTLDs go live, they must go through a rigorous approval process at ICANN and survive any objections or legal challenges. It will certainly be 2013 before any new gTLDs are actually available for registration.
3. Begin to consider whether you might want to file any objections to gTLD applications, including a "legal rights" objection (that is, where "the applied-for gTLD string infringes the existing legal rights of the objector") or a "community objection" (that is, where "there is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted").
4. If you applied for one or more gTLDs, prepare to respond to any objections. As you know, filing an application was just the start of your process. Now, you need to see your application through to approval. Preparing in advance (that is, now) for potential objections could increase the likelihood of your success later.
5. Watch for more details about the Trademark Clearinghouse. Designed to provide limited protections for trademark owners once registrations within the new gTLDs are available, ICANN's new Trademark Clearinghouse will allow trademark owners to submit their marks for inclusion in a database. As I have said before, the Trademark Clearinghouse will be of little value, but it is something that all trademark owners should consider.
6. Remember the UDRP. All registry operators for new gTLDs will be required to implement the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). As I have said before, the UDRP is -- in the words of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) -- “the only proven mechanism in place to absorb the impact of gTLD expansion.” Therefore, trademark owners can take some comfort that this useful legal tool will still be available to them as the cybersquatting problem surely explodes.
7. Don't get excited about the URS. Once touted as an even better legal solution to cybersquatting than the UDRP, the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) is of limited value to trademark owners because it is not likely to be much quicker or much less expensive than the UDRP. Plus, the URS remedy is much more limited than in UDRP cases, because trademark owners can only get domain names suspended -- not transferred -- under the URS. In any event, the URS as a viable tool is still unknown given that ICANN has not yet announced whether any dispute resolution service is willing to serve as a provider (and the targeted low fees surely are discouraging service providers from signing up to administer the URS).
8. Don't question whether you should have applied for a gTLD of your own (that is, if you didn't actually do so). It's a moot point now. But, there will be opportunities in the future to apply again (according to ICANN, "as expeditiously as possible," whatever that means) -- and, perhaps, learn from the many lessons that will emerge from this unprecedented experience.
9. Ignore the press. As a former newspaper reporter and magazine editor, I understand and appreciate the difficulties that the media have in generating interesting, relevant, timely and accurate news articles. The new gTLD process is a complicated one, and the first media reports are likely to be incomplete, misleading, sensational and perhaps even inaccurate. Fortunately, it won't matter what any reporter or blogger (including yours truly!) has to say about the process. What matters is how you will respond to it.
10. Talk with your attorney. Now. I know, this probably sounds self-serving -- and, maybe it is. But, it's also good advice. An attorney who knows about gTLDs, domain name disputes and Internet law in general can help guide you through one of the most important changes that has taken place online since perhaps the creation of the World Wide Web itself.

What $150 Will Get You at ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse

By Doug Isenberg Three and a half months after promising to announce the providers of its new Trademark Clearinghouse, ICANN has finally informed of us its selections: Deloitte and IBM.

While Deloitte and IBM are certainly well-credentialed, it remains unclear whether the Trademark Clearinghouse will, despite ICANN's assurances, truly provide much protection for trademark owners amid the gTLD expansion.

As described by the Applicant Guidebook, the purpose of the Trademark Clearinghouse is to serve as "a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored, and disseminated, pertaining to the rights of trademark holders." By registering their marks in the Trademark Clearinghouse:

• Trademark owners will obtain certain advantages and notifications during "sunrise" periods that will apply to registrations of second-level domain names within new gTLDs as they are launched; and
• Registrants of second-level domain names will receive (at least during the first 60 days after a new gTLD is open for general registration) notifications of trademarks that are an identical match to their newly registered domain names.

Although many have questioned whether these systems will do anything to combat cybersquatting in the new gTLDs, one lingering and important question appears to have been answered along with ICANN's most recent announcement: How much will trademark owners have to pay to participate in the Trademark Clearinghouse?

A new set of web pages on ICANN's site, posted simultaneously with the announcement of the selection of Deloitte and IBM, provides additional information about the Trademark Clearinghouse and "tracks the progress of implementation work done on the Trademark Clearinghouse." A document on the new page titled "Preliminary Cost Model" (dated June 1, 2012) indicates that the "authentication and validation" services are "expected" to cost trademark owners less than $150 "per submission" (that is, per trademark submitted to the Clearinghouse).

While the $150 fee may seem like a low price to pay for any type of trademark protection online, trademark owners need to keep a number of factors in mind as they decide whether -- or to what extent -- they want to participate, including the following:

• The $150 fee is per trademark.  Therefore, a company with a large portfolio of different trademarks could face a substantially higher fee if it elects to register all of its trademarks at the Clearinghouse.
• To the extent that participation in the Trademark Clearinghouse provides trademark owners with any meaningful protection, that protection will be limited to instances of only identical matches between trademarks and second-level domain names.
• Participation in the Trademark Clearinghouse will not prevent cybersquatters or anyone else from registering any domain name.

In addition, a number of outstanding questions remain about mechanical issues relating to the Trademark Clearinghouse. Hopefully, these will be answered quickly, to give trademark owners time to fully consider their options before deciding whether even a $150 expense is a worthy investment.

Hopeful Domain Name Registry Operators Start to Reveal Their Plans

By Doug Isenberg One day after ICANN finally stopped accepting applications for new global top-level domain names, we're getting real insight into what some of the 2,000-ish new gTLDs might actually look like.

Until now, few applicants (or potential applicants) had announced their intentions, presumably thinking that there would be little strategic benefit in giving anyone else advance notice. But now that the application window has closed, some would-be registry operators are apparently eager to tout their plans.

And the announcements are most interesting.

Among them:

• Google said it has applied for (among others): . google, .docs, .youtube and .lol.  In a blog post, Google's Vint Cerf (a former ICANN chairman) said its applications covered the company's trademarks, "[d]omains related to our core business," "[d]omains that will improve user experience" and "[d]omains we think have interesting and creative potential."
• Momentous said it has applied for .design, .style, .rip and .sucks. The last of these (.sucks) has immediately raised debate among trademark professionals about whether the domain is intended merely to force trademark owners into registering their brands in this potential new gTLD as a defensive measure, given that UDRP and other legal decisions often protect gripe sites.
• Directi said it has applied for a whopping 31 gTLDs in several categories, including those it considers generic (such as .web), industry verticals (such as .law), "business auxiliaries" (such as .app), financial (such as .bank), social and healthcare (such as .doctor) and e-commerce (such as .shop).
• The American Bankers Association and The Financial Services Roundtable said they have applied for .bank and .insurance -- "on behalf of the financial services industry."

Other recent announcements include those for .ngo and .ong (for not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations); another for .web; .home and .casa from registrar GoDaddy; .creditunion; and .secure. These join older announcements for a multitude of gTLDs, just a few of which include .gay; .eco; and .nyc; and such brands as .canon; .hitachi; and .neustar.

Obviously, given the tremendous number of applications that ICANN has received, many more potential gTLDs are still to be revealed. If all goes according to (the latest) plan, that will occur on June 13 -- the day ICANN has designated as "Reveal Day."

As Reveal Day approaches, trademark owners and others concerned about the impact of the new gTLDs should be watching these announcements closely and carefully consider their options for filing objections to the new top-level domain names.

You Can't Take a Domain Name With You When You Die -- So, Make Arrangements Now

By Doug Isenberg Where does a domain name go when its registrant dies?

That's a question that could have been asked in a recent Wall Street Journal article, "If a Business Owner Dies, Who Can Access the Web?" The article focuses on how small businesses continue operating after an owner dies if they depend on cloud-based computing services that were registered in the name of the dearly departed.

If an online banking account, payroll service or e-mail account is controlled by an individual, then a company may have trouble using those services after the individual dies -- especially if the individual has not shared the username and password with others who should have access to them.

The same is especially true for domain names, which need to be renewed and which are essential to most companies' operations -- for a website and/or e-mail addresses.

Think about it. What would you do if your website and e-mail addresses suddenly stopped working because the domain name supporting them was registered to someone at your company who has died? Or, for that matter, someone who simply left your company on less morbid terms.

It might mean the death of your business.

And, it's not just an issue for small businesses.  Companies of all sizes have gotten into trouble for failure to renew their domain names for a variety of reasons. In 2003, Microsoft reportedly failed to renew its <hotmail.co.uk> domain name -- but quickly recovered it from "a good hearted soul."

But many others are not so lucky. Numerous trademark owners have filed UDRP complaints to recover domain names previously in their control. Donna Karan Studio accidentally failed to renew <dknyjeans.com>, Edmunds.com, Inc. let <edmund.com> inadvertently lapse, and even the International Olympic Committee let <olympicmuseum.org> and <olympicmuseum.net> slip through the renewal cracks.

Ensuring that domain names are registered to a corporate (not individual) account and that multiple trustworthy people have access to (and even regularly check on) domain name registrations could help avoid a domain name lapse -- when someone dies or merely forgets to do his job.

And while it's true in the world of domain names, as it is elsewhere, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, the UDRP often can help a trademark owner recover its domain in a worst-case scenario.

What's Important About Apple Getting the Domain Name iphone5.com

By Doug Isenberg

A flurry of news reports and blogs state that Apple has gained control of the domain name <iphone5.com>.  See, to name a few, Computerworld, PC Magazine, CNET News, Apple Insider, the San Francisco Chronicle, and even The Christian Post.

The articles note that WIPO's website lists a UDRP complaint for the domain name as "terminated." And the registrant of the domain name is now identified in the Whois database as Apple Inc.

But, why is this news?

Surely, it can't be because the UDRP complaint spills the beans on Apple's plans to call its next smartphone the "iPhone 5." If that's what Apple decides, no one on Earth will be surprised.

Surely, it can't be because the outcome of this UDRP case is unusual. Every day, trademark owners file UDRP complaints, and it's not uncommon for straightforward cases to be terminated if the registrant agrees to transfer the domain name to the complainant (trademark owner). Indeed, in a similarly terminated UDRP case last year, Apple obtained the domain name <iphone4s.com>.

Surely, it can't be because this UDRP case raised novel factual or legal issues (although, without the benefit of seeing the complaint, it's impossible to know for certain). After all, while the "iPhone" trademark was once of dubious value, Apple acquired the mark from Cisco more than five years ago, and the brand is clearly well-known if not legally famous -- therefore, entitled to strong protection against cybersquatting.

The answer (according to the former newspaper reporter inside of me) is simply because it's Apple. And it's about the iPhone. That is, a company with a globally enthusiastic fan base and a product that just might be the most important (and/or exciting) high-tech gadget of our generation attracts news coverage of events (such as terminated UDRP cases) that are otherwise not newsworthy.

Yes, because it's Apple.

That's why I can't recall seeing a single news article about any other recently terminated UDRP decisions, such as (to cite just a few real examples): <swarovskicrystaloutlets.org>, <pricewaterhousesa.com>, <laquintahotel.info>, <citrixindia.com>, <ikeadirecto.com> or <serviceheladeraselectrolux.com>. All great brands, but none with the same cachet as Apple.

So, what's the lesson for trademark owners in the <iphone5.com> UDRP case, if there are no legal precedents to discern? I have two thoughts:

• If your company, or your brand (or even you), are already newsworthy, filing a domain name dispute might catch the attention of one or more reporters, possibly resulting in news coverage of your dispute. (See, for example, <teachbook.com>, <spikelee.com> and <newyorknewyork.com>.)

• Mainstream news coverage of any domain name dispute raises the profile of the cybersquatting problem in general and the UDRP process in particular.

So, Now That ICANN Has Appointed an 'Independent Objector' -- What's an 'Independent Objector'?

By Doug Isenberg ICANN recently announced the appointment of Alain Pellet as the "Independent Objector" for the global top-level domain (gTLD) program. Pellet is a professor at the University Paris Ouest with an impressive background in academics and government service.

So, what will Professor Pellet do in his new role at ICANN, and how will this affect gTLD applicants and others?

The short answer, directly from section 3.2.5 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook: The Independent Objector "may file objections against 'highly objectionable' gTLD applications to which no objection has been filed" (emphasis added).

Although the gTLD program allows objections to applications on several grounds, the Independent Objector is limited to filing objections based on the following, and only if at least one comment in opposition to the application already has been made:

• Limited Public Interest: "The applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles of international law."
• Community: "There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted."

The International Chamber of Commerce will hear both types of objections.

Although the Independent Objector is not the only entity that may file these objections, the creation of this role could increase the number of objections actually filed.

Still, the Independent Objector's mandate is far from clear, given that the Applicant Guidebook does not define what a "highly objectionable" application is, nor does it actually require the Independent Objector to file an objection under any circumstance. As a result, the Independent Objector apparently will have wide discretion, which means we could see few or many objections filed.

ICANN's description of the position doesn't provide much insight into how active the Independent Objector might, stating only that the person fulfilling this role (that is, Professor Pellet) will "act solely in the best interests of the public who use the global Internet when determining whether to file an objection to a given application" and "will be compensated fairly."

Fortunately, ICANN wants the Independent Objector to "publicly report" on his activities and his "time spent." So, based on these public reports and the applications actually filed, we will all learn more in due course about the relevance of this unusual role.

Maybe This is How ICANN Should Handle Its 'Technical Glitch'

By Doug Isenberg Now here's a study in contrasts:

Case Study #1: After years of preparation, ICANN officially began accepting applications for new top-level domain names (TLDs) on January 11, 2012. Although the application window was due to close on April 12, ICANN abruptly shut down the system on that date, citing its discovery of a "technical issue" with the TLD Application System (TAS), which ICANN later said was first reported to it 24 days earlier.

After 18 press releases offering minimal information about the issue, ICANN finally described the problem as "a technical glitch that may have allowed some users to see some file names and user names of other users." ICANN then said that it intends to reopen TAS on May 22 -- 40 days after it first publicly reported the problem, and 64 days after it apparently first learned of the problem.

In the meantime, ICANN announced that it had received 2,091 applications for new top-level domain names, resulting in approximately $350 million in application fees. Trademark owners around the world, among others, anxiously await publication of these domain name applications, which could vastly change how we all use the Internet.

Case Study #2: A popular start-up called Kickstarter -- which bills itself as "a funding platform for creative projects" -- announced on May 13 that, two days earlier, "one of our engineers uncovered a bug involving Kickstarter's private API, which is used to display projects on the Kickstarter homepage."

In its announcement, Kickstarter said: "This bug allowed some data from unlaunched projects to be made accessible via the API. It was immediately fixed upon discovering the error. No account or financial data of any kind was made accessible."

So, in the span of two days, Kickstarter apparently discovered a technical glitch that exposed user data, fixed it, announced details about it, and returned to business as usual.

Perhaps ICANN needs a kickstart?

With Attention Focused on New gTLDs, Another Record Year of Cybersquatting Goes (Almost) Unnoticed

By Doug Isenberg In March, as ICANN was in the midst of receiving applications for new global top-level domains (gTLDs), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported an important-but-nearly-overlooked statistic: The number of domain name disputes reached a record high -- again -- in 2011.

Specifically, as WIPO said:

In 2011, trademark holders filed a record 2,764 cybersquatting cases covering 4,781 domain names with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO Center) under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), an increase of 2.5% and 9.4% over the previous highest levels in 2010 and 2009, respectively.

The chart above (total number of domain name dispute cases per year, at WIPO) shows the dramatic trend.

Importantly, these stats don't represent all UDRP cases, given that complaints are also filed at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) and the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC). But WIPO's figures are likely representative of overall trends and, in the past, WIPO filings have accounted for about 53% of all UDRP cases.

While the total number of domain name disputes actually filed is only a tiny fraction of all domain names registered, the trend is certainly clear: Cybersquatting is a growing problem.

Despite this important statistic, it appears as if the ailment is largely being ignored. A Reuters article on cybersquatting even buried this record-setting news of 2,764 cases in an article about a mere 10 disputes in the new .xxx top-level domain.

Why has this troubling trademark trend gone unnoticed? A few possibilities:

• Trademark owners, and everyone else in the domaining community, are distracted by so much attention on the new gTLDs -- a future problem, not a current problem.
• Cybersquatting has become merely a way of life, that is, a nuisance that is to be expected and treated in the ordinary course of business.
• As the Reuters article illustrates, writing about .xxx is a lot sexier than writing about a typical UDRP decision that involves confusion with a company outside the adult entertainment industry.
• The same news has been reported before. As the chart above shows, UDRP filings have increased for seven of the past eight years.

Whatever the reason for less attention on the cybersquatting problem -- and the reality is probably all of the above -- the trend appears to be continuing. In the first four months of 2012, UDRP filings at WIPO are already up nearly 15 percent from last year.