Socially Unacceptable?

shutterstock_186292982

I’d like to take a brief departure this week from our usual discussion of domain name disputes and talk about the important issue of social media. As many of you know, trademark infringement in the online arena is not limited to domain names, and many brand owners have been faced with misleading, fraudulent, and other confusing uses of their trademarks in social media usernames (account names used to identify a page on a social media site).

While the use of trademarks or brand names on social media may sometimes fall into the category of ”fair use“ – such as fan, commentary, or criticism pages – quite often these usernames host infringing content. In some cases, these usernames point to pages where counterfeit or competing products are offered or user information is sought for identity theft, or in other cases, to pages that are inactive and might leave viewers to believe the brand owner is neglecting its social presence.

The subject of intellectual property infringement in social media is a lively discussion topic in the trademark community. What actions can a company take if it finds a username that contains its brand or trademark? At present, each social media website has its own intellectual property policy and process for handling disputes. Most of these policies are rather vague and place complete discretion in the hands of the website. They also provide very limited opportunity for brand owners or username account holders to submit evidence and arguments in favor of their position.

The patchwork of policies that arises from each site establishing its own procedures can be frustrating to trademark owners tasked with enforcing their marks. Moreover, the time it takes to resolve these complaints is often unpredictable, sometimes taking as little as 24 hours to as much as six weeks.

Although many complain of unsuccessful attempts at taking down or transferring account names, in my own experience, social media sites are often accommodating and agree to grant clients’ requests. As with any form of trademark infringement, a large part of the process involves target selection and brand owners are bound to be disappointed if they try to pursue a defensible name which hosts fair use content. However, the fact remains that as more platforms emerge in the social media sphere, the work of enforcing intellectual property and trademark rights becomes increasingly fragmented and complex.

To help combat this complexity, Kristine Dorrain of the National Arbitration Forum and I presented a proposal for a more streamlined dispute resolution mechanism at the 2011 intellectual property forum hosted by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute in Philadelphia. We argued that it is time for an SUDRP or “Social Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” that would bring consistency and accountability to the social media brand enforcement process and relieve social media sites of the potential liability they currently face when handling these disputes on their own. Much like the UDRP, an SUDRP could include objective standards for confusion, legitimate interest, and bad faith and would also assure timely and reliable implementation of decisions.

For now, brand owners must contend with the current state of affairs.

However, I expect this area will only gain importance as social media platforms continue to grow, and in that case, it would be very helpful to have an SUDRP in place.

The Internet Ecosystem’s Alphabet Soup

The Alphabet Soup

shutterstock_37478005Next week, the World Congress on Information Technology (WCIT) will provide a gathering place for business, media, academics, policymakers, technology professionals, and organizations in Guadalajara, Mexico. The conference brings this diverse community in information and communication technology together in order to provide a “proper platform for the industry, policy makers and academy to show their peers, how ICT innovations are helping them to create new alternatives for a challenging world” – a discussion platform rather than a meeting that ends with policy or regulation decisions.

This may be a little confusing because there also exists the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), the United Nation (UN)-led initiative that sometimes makes the news.

In the alphabet soup of meetings that may have come across your radar, you may have also seen the following: The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which met in Istanbul, Turkey in early September, and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference to be held in Busan, South Korea from October 20 to November 7 – sometimes just called the “Plenipot”. These two meetings are associated with the UN in different ways: IGF gathers various parts of the Internet community for discussion through a UN mandate. According to its fact sheet (found here), there is no “negotiated outcome” (in other words, it produces no immediate policy or treaty), but rather it “informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors.” The Plenipot, on the other hand, is convened as an official meeting of the UN’s ITU. This event, held every four years, covers “issues that require international cooperation following technological development, pending global issues, international agendas in telecommunications, and follow-up measures for major summit-level conferences”.

And, of course, there’s ICANN 51, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) own public meeting, which will be held in Los Angeles from October 12 to October 16. ICANN’s public meetings, which take place three times a year, gather the Internet community to contribute to policies on domain name management that have far-reaching effects on businesses from an IT, marketing, and legal perspective.

What does it spell out?

All of these organizations help comprise a complex Internet governance ecosystem with their various mandates, not to mention their overlapping constituencies. For example, you’re likely to see ICANN officials not only at the ICANN meeting, but also at the WCIT meeting in Guadalajara next week. You’re likely to see some national governments represented at each of the meetings listed above.

While it may seem difficult to keep track of it all, understanding how these different organizations fit together in the larger puzzle of Internet governance and how their activities impact things like Internet policy and how commerce is conducted online is crucial for well-informed brand owners.

The upcoming ICANN 51 meeting can be a place to start, especially if you are a company with a presence in the U.S. and have concerns about the time and resources that will have to be dedicated to getting involved in Internet governance. Most meetings related to Internet structure and governance are held around the world in rotating locations that can be difficult to attend due to time and travel budget constraints. However, with ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, it can be an opportunity to get your feet wet, go to sessions, participate in some of the after-hours discussions, and get up to speed on major policy decisions that affect brands’ digital strategy decisions.

Many organizations have opportunities to work on issues remotely, for example, by participating on working groups and submitting public comments. However, with much work done on-the-ground at these meetings, seeing one for yourself at least once can help demystify the dynamics at play.

If you decide to head to LA, we’ll see you there – otherwise, stay tuned for updates from ICANN 51 in October.

Panel Rules Case is Better Suited for Court

shutterstock_140867215

When reading the “Parties’ Contentions” section of this decision over the domain <areds2.com>, my mind was starting to fill up with all the potential issues: common-law trademarks, who registered first, fair use, the use of whois privacy services, and the rarity of government agencies asserting their trademarks. However, the panel decided to address none of this.

The complainant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has been using the AREDS2 mark since 2007 in connection with information relating to the age-related eye disease. It also owns a trademark registration for this name. The respondent, whose name doesn’t appear in the case title or the whois record, registered areds2.com in 2005 and hosts what it claims to be an informational page about the AREDS2 study. However, the page also displays a link to a Google search results page that contains links to companies who sell vitamins related to the study.

I see all sorts of questions here. Did the complainant develop common-law trademark rights to the AREDS2 name before it filed its trademark application? Is the respondent’s registration of the domain prior to the complainant’s first claim of trademark rights a bar to finding bad faith? Does the respondent hiding its identity suggest that it acted in bad faith? Is it truly fair use of the AREDS2 name to host an informational site with a disclaimer at the bottom but also to offer a link to Google search results where vitamins are sold (possibly by another one of the respondent’s companies?).

However, it is this last issue that the panel focuses on.  It notes that the question of fair use creates a legitimate legal dispute which should be decided by the courts as it is outside the scope of the UDRP, which was created only to decide more obvious cases of abusive domain registrations.  The claim was ultimately denied and it was suggested that “the parties should resolve the matter in another forum such as a court of mutual jurisdiction or before the USPTO.”

What I find odd about this decision is that it fails to even mention the well-established line of UDRP cases that deal with a very similar area of fair use and which could have been considered here.  The seminal case is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, in which the panel formulated a 4-part test for determining whether a domain owner is making a bona fide offering of goods and services though fair use of a complainant’s trademark. I think this test could be adapted to the AREDS2 case as follows:  1) Is the respondent actually posting content related to the AREDS2 mark? 2) Does the site only promote the AREDS2 study? 3) Is there a disclaimer clearly explaining the lack of respondent’s relationship with the complainant? And 4) has the respondent tried to corner the market by registering a bunch of other AREDS2 domains?

The only real question here seems to be whether the Google search link on the un-named respondent’s website could be viewed as only promoting the AREDS2 study and products related thereto or whether it runs afoul of the second part of the Oki Data test. I suppose it’s possible that the search results show a company that is also owned by the respondent and that is selling unrelated vitamins or products. However, that would be for the complainant to investigate and argue in its pleadings.

For now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will have to decide if it wants to follow the panel’s advice and take this mystery domain owner to court – a far more expensive and distracting process than pursuing a UDRP complaint.

ICANN Auction 2014: The Latest Schedule and How it Works

Bids

On September 11, 2014, ICANN released an updated Auction Schedule for all remaining contention sets – a situation where more than one organization applied for the same gTLD. The outcome of these ICANN Auctions affects not only the new gTLD applicants involved, but also brand owners looking to register in new gTLDs.

Because of past delays, today’s auction will be the first to settle multiple contention sets in a single round:

  • .BUY,
  • .TECH, and
  • .VIP.

All of these strings have multiple applicants and Google and Donuts are featured in all three.

It is also the first ICANN Auction for a Latin alphabet string. Thus far, the only contention set resolved by ICANN Auction has been a Chinese IDN, which Beijing Tele-info Network Technology Co., Ltd. won out over Afilias.

How the ICANN Auction Will Solve the .BUY Contention

The .BUY contention set in particular is a good example of how an ICANN auction winner can have a major impact on whether or not a brand owner decides to register in a new gTLD. The .BUY contention set is between:

  • Donuts,
  • Amazon,
  • Google, and
  • Famous Four Media.

If Donuts were to win .BUY, brand owners concerned with defensive registrations who have purchased the Donuts DPML Block would be able to breathe easy, as the Block would cover this string.

If Famous Four Media wins the contention set, most brand owners will have to proactively register domains in the string to protect their trademarks.

Another scenario is if Amazon wins the auction. In its application, Amazon proposed to operate .BUY as not fully open; however, the exact registration policy has not been released. Some brand owners may be able to register in an Amazon-owned .BUY while others may not. This could have significant implications for brands’ online strategies.

How Does the ICANN Auction Work?

As a reminder, the ICANN Auction is the resolution method of last resort. In some cases:

  1. Applicants involved in a contention set have reached private deals to reach a resolution.
  2. Sometimes, especially when the applicants involved have applied for multiple gTLDs, an applicant will give up one string in exchange for keeping another. While the details of these private settlements are not made public, many of the applicants involved in the contention sets up for Auction today have been party to such settlements.
  1. In other instances, these settlements involve paying out the “losing” applicant or applicants for sums that range from the thousands to millions of dollars.

Will the ICANN Auctions result in similar string prices? Or, will holding out for an ICANN Auction lower the sticker price?

Further, will the outcome of these ICANN Auctions cause other applicants in contention sets to change course, either in favor of ICANN Auctions or against? We’ll find out soon enough!

The auction began today at 9 AM, but how long it will go is anybody’s guess – the auction is an ascending-clock model, which means that bidders must match the minimum bid for each unit of time in order to move on to the next round. The longer more than one bidder is willing to stay in the auction, the longer it will take to reach a conclusion.

Complainant Gets Dumped On After 13 Years Of Inaction

Until Certplex, Ltd. filed a complaint against respondent Hasham Malik / NextAge, the two entities had used their domains concurrently for 13 years with no conflict. Given that the complaint ended in a denied transfer of the domain name braindumps.biz,  it seems that the Complainant should have left well enough alone.

The complainant, a US company, owns a 2013 registration of the trademark BRAINDUMPS for computer certification exam preparation courses and claims that it has common-law trademark rights dating back to 1997.  It has also used the domain braindumps.com to promote its services since 2001.

Since 2002, the Respondent has also sold materials and services relating to computer certification tests – answer keys, interactive tests, and the like. The Respondent has asserted that, as a resident of Qatar, it had no knowledge of the existence of complainant or its claimed common-law mark. In any case, the respondent claims the term “brain dump” is generic for transferring information from one person to another.

The Panelist agreed that the Respondent registered the generic term in good faith and held that “[h]ere, given the arguably generic nature of the word ‘braindumps’ and Respondent’s long use, the Panel cannot find that the initial registration was in bad faith when that registration occurred thirteen years ago, and the mark held by the Complainant was not issued until just a few months ago.”

The Panel addressed Respondent’s laches (delay) defense only by saying that “[b]ecause the application of the doctrine of latches is unnecessary, the Panel would only point out that the Panel’s decisions concerning ‘rights in the name’ and ‘bad faith’ are based upon Complainant’s failure to act to protect its rights for approximately thirteen years.”

I feel that the Complainant’s delay in bringing this action may have been completely irrelevant here.  As the Panelist notes, it appears that the respondent, in a geographically distant location, had a good faith intent to start a business under the Brain Dumps name from the very start: The passage of so many years has only reinforced this point, but the point itself remains. If the Complainant had filed an action soon after the braindumps.biz domain was first created, it’s unlikely the decision would have looked any different.

However, if the braindumps.biz domain resolved only to a pay-per-click site with links to random businesses, it’s entirely possible that this case might have gone the other way.

UDRP panels have become more willing to consider a laches defense where the passage of time is not the only factor. However, since it’s still a developing area and panelists are generally reluctant to apply the defense, the Panelist in this case likely deferred on the issue since he had other factors upon which to base his decision.

Complaint Still Gets Its Funk On After 15 Years

This week we take a look at a complaint over a domain name that the complainant didn’t pursue for 15 years. The surprise? The complaint resulted in a transfer of the domain!

The Domain Name Dispute Facts

The complainant, a corporate entity holding the rights to the music and performances of the Grand Funk Railroad Band as well as trademarks for the band’s name, filed a complaint over the domain name grandfunk.com. The domain resolved to a pay-per-click site with many music-related links (including a few relating to the band) and was also listed for sale on the Network Solutions website for $50,000. The respondent hid behind a privacy service.

The Results

Since the respondent stayed hidden behind the privacy service and did not submit any response, there is no evidence that its true name is in any way related to the words “Grand” or “Funk” and so it has no legitimate interest in the domain.

On the question of laches (delay), the panelist cited the WIPO Overview 2.0 (a summary of established precedent in UDRP cases) and stated that “Panels have recognized that the doctrine or defense of laches as such does not generally apply under the UDRP, and that delay … in bringing a complaint does not of itself prevent a complainant from filing under the UDRP, or from being able to succeed under the UDRP, where a complainant can establish a case on the merits under the requisite three elements. Panels have noted that the remedies under the UDRP are injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and that a principal concern is to avoid ongoing or future confusion as to the source of communications, goods, or services.”

In applying this principle, the panelist held that “[Grand Funk] is an unusual name and, in the Panel’s view, not one likely to have been selected at random. In other words, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trade mark in mind when registering the Domain Name.”

My Own Take on the UDRP Decision?

This holding should not give brand owners cause to be more relaxed about domain enforcement.  The facts of this case are very specific and may not apply in other situations where a brand owner knew or should have known about a domain that so obviously copies its trademark for such a long period of time.  Of course, all infringing domains must be assessed on how much harm they’re causing to a brand owner, but for those that are clear infringements, action should never be delayed without good cause.  Were this respondent to have filed a reply and put up a well-reasoned defense, this case could very easily have gone the other way.

High Burden For Reverse Hijacking Maintained

For a classic UDRP lesson, we can open our books to the complaint filed over <nuvotv.com> and <nuvotv.net>. This is a lecture on only hiring a counsel who is specifically experienced in domain name enforcement.

The UDRP complain was denied – why?

This UDRP complaint failed because there was no element of bad faith registration.

According to the text of the complaint, “the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in July 2008. The Complainant rebranded under the NUVO TV mark in July 2011. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Complainant’s intentions were publicly known until the latter half of 2010, and no plausible explanation has been offered as to how the Respondent when registering the disputed domain names in July 2008 could have foreseen this development.”

A counsel with experience in domain name enforcement would not have tried to pursue domain names that were registered before any trademark rights were established. As the decision notes, in this sort of situation, “the registration of the domain name is not in bad faith since the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent rights.”

Why wasn’t the complainant guilty of reverse domain hijacking?

The panelist declined to find the complainant guilty of reverse domain hijacking but gave no real explanation for his decision. He just state that “[w]hile the Panel has determined based on the facts and circumstances before it that the Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the third element of the Policy, the Panel is not persuaded from the totality of the record that the Complainant acted in bad faith in invoking the Policy in this case.”

I disagree with this finding and feel that it only gives a free pass to companies and their counsel who fail to understand the UDRP before causing undue stress and the expense of time (and perhaps legal fees) for innocent domain owners.  In my day-to-day work I deal with a lot of disreputable and unethical cybersquatters, but every once in a while I come across someone who has a good justification for their domain, and, in those instances, I advise clients to either negotiate a purchase of the domain or simply back off entirely.

For some reason, in this case, the complainant and its counsel decided to barrel ahead. Perhaps they wanted to use the threat of a filed UDRP complaint as leverage to bring the respondent to the bargaining table. In the end, they didn’t get what they wanted (the domain name), but they did get off easy with the panelist by avoiding the label of a reverse domain hijacker.