[ALAC] BGC decision of NCSG reconsideration request on TM+50

[Hong Xue]

I'm not addicit to this, but UDRP is more complicated than those
"implementers" imagine. Apart from gTLDs, a number of ccTLDs (equivalent to
gTLDs), such as .tv, .cc or more recent .co, are required to apply UDRP per
se (not similar ccTLD processes) under the GAC Principles. If the
"implementation" does want to address the TMs abused in the UDRP cases,
there is no way to exclude these ccTLD UDRP cases. Of course, this makes
the whole things even more fascinating.

Hong



On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  At 22/05/2013 02:33 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
>
> Option a) 50+ records in TMCH are the domain name strings (for example
> yahoosuchs.com or prada-for-sale.com) that had been either transferred or
> deleted in UDRP proceeds. But, many well-known marks have already won more
> than 50 UDRP decisions. It is arbitrary to limit to 50. How to limit to
> 50?
>
>
> 50 was clearly an arbitrary number. But how to limit to 50 PER MARK is a
> problem, since I don't think that it will be clear from records presented
> to TMCH that (for example) OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft US is the same
> TM as OUTLOOK registered to Microsoft Canada, but different from the
> fictitious OUTLOOK registered to Hong Xue in China. The only way I see is
> to limit by rule and have the TM holder assert that the marks are different
> if they are (with penalties for not being honest). But that is far better
> than ignoring the issue.
>
>
>
> Option b) an owner of a mark that has been "abused" in a UDRP proceeding
> (for example geogle.com) may choose to submit up to 50 "variations" of
> its marks (for example Gooogle, Gooooooogle, etc). It is definitely
> arbitrary if variations are subject to the mark holder's choice. Some years
> ago, CNN claims that CNNIC is confusingly similar to it-:)
>
> BUT, UDRP has no finality and its decision may be overruled by the
> competent court. Shouldn't the final judicial decision count, rather than
> the UDRP award that has been set aside?
>
>
> I would presume that an overturned UDRP decision no longer stands and a TM
> holder could not submit it.
>
>
> AND, UDRP is also applied to a number of ccTLDs. Would 50+ be extended to
> the UDRP cases regarding ccTLD domain names?
>
>
> Again, the devil is in the details, which we have not seen, but my
> presumption is that the term UDRP in this case referd to ICANN's UDRP and
> not a similar process for a ccTLD.
>
>
>
> TMCH implementation is now completely messy and its two appointed
> providers are not even ready to handle the "exact mark" (without IDN
> variants), let alone this 50+. If 50+ is indeed implementation, there still
> need further guidance or clarifications to enable it.
>
>
> How could I argue with that?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Hong
>
>


-- 
Professor Dr. Hong Xue
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China