IP CONSTITUENCY
been made clear what forums exist for brand owners to participate in ICANN, and actually help shape the future of the Internet, rather than just reading about the developments aſter they have occurred.
Relatively few of the largest brand owners around the world are involved directly; more are involved indirectly through IP organisations, but despite their hard work and participation, they still represent only a tiny fraction of brand owners around the world. Yet ICANN’s structure—and within it, the IPC—makes it possible essentially for every IP owner to become directly involved and, collectively, make a difference.
Many voices have argued that the IPC is trying to stand in the way, or delay the introduction, of the new gTLD programme. It is important to understand that the IPC and IRT were, and are, not against the introduction of new gTLDs, as long as it is done intelligently. Te IPC has spent years trying to explain that it is not an enemy of non-commercial interests that purport to ensure rights to privacy are respected, or an enemy of the rights of registrars and registries who are in the domain name business, but its voice is oſten drowned out by money, numbers, and misunderstanding.
Ultimately, most people connected with the Internet, including brand owners, are excited by the potential for innovation and new ideas. Te aim is not to hold back gTLDs—it is to ensure that this is not done at the unreasonable expense of brand owners, and to ensure that less scrupulous registrants are not allowed to proceed unchecked, costing millions that simply line the pockets of those who play fast and loose with the rules, and lending nothing to the Internet or innovation which, brand owners hope, will come out of the growth of the Internet.
In fact, one of the good things about the introduction of new gTLDs is that it has dramatically broadened public awareness of
28
“THE IPC NEEDS THE LONG-TERM SUPPORT AND COMMITMENT OF MAJOR BRAND OWNERS AROUND THE WORLD TO ENSURE THAT THE REASONABLE POSITIONS OF
BRAND OWNERS ARE CLEARLY HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD.”
then the one proven, effective lynchpin RPM brand owners have in the domain name system could be seriously damaged, or even lost. Brand owners need to support the IPC now.
ICANN, including among brand owners. Many hope that this will result in more brand owners becoming active members, providing much- needed financial and human resources to the IPC.
Te IPC has limited resources because it does not receive dues from the corporations for whom it is trying to be a voice in the community. Te IPC needs the long-term support and commitment of major brand owners around the world to ensure that the reasonable positions of brand owners are clearly heard, understood, and factored into pertinent policy decisions by the ICANN board.
Tis is a call to action for brand owners: only the number of members, quality of representation within the IPC, and financial resources will help make a difference to the positions of brand owners as ICANN moves forward with the launch of new gTLDs, and other initiatives in the future.
Te UDRP is targeted for review some time in the next year or two. Te review is being spearheaded by non-commercial and registrar groups who have many reasons why they would like to see the UDRP changed, or even eliminated. A thorough review of UDRP aſter 15 years is a reasonable idea, if it is for the purpose of streamlining the process, or looking for ways to improve its usefulness, to save time or to reduce cost. However, if the purpose is to ‘water it down’ and remove its value for brand owners,
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 1, Issue 2
Nobody knows for certain who will file new gTLD applications, how many applications will be filed, or how many will be accepted. It may be months before these questions are answered, years before we see how many sites go live and stay live, and which, if any, of the concerns expressed by the IPC and others are realised. In the meantime, the IPC will continue to work diligently to support the interests of, and ideally with the support of, brand owners everywhere.
Jonathan C. Cohen is the senior partner at Shapiro Cohen. He can be contacted at:
jcohen@shapirocohen.com
Jonathan C. Cohen is based in Ottawa, Canada. He has practised exclusively in trademarks since joining Shapiro Cohen as a founding partner in 1963 and has worked extensively with ICANN since its formation in 1998, serving two terms on the board of directors and twice on the board of CIRA, which administers .ca. Cohen was the founder and first president of the IPC in 1999, and served on the first (DNSO) GNSO Names Council. He has spoken and written extensively on ICANN and domain name issues for 15 years.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68