NEWS ICANN delays 20 percent of gTLDs
A fiſth of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applications have been delayed by a minimum of three months aſter security concerns about “name collisions”.
Interisle Consulting Group, an IT security company, produced a 197-page report detailing the substantial potential for domain names within private Internet networks to clash with publicly available gTLDs.
Private networks use naming conventions that look and operate like the public domain name system, in which new gTLDs will be delegated. Although the names are properly set within their networks, they are sometimes queried externally—by global Internet users.
A clash of private and public strings sharing the same name would cause security problems, the report said, such as traffic being directed to the wrong place.
Te study, commissioned by ICANN and published on August 5, identifies three areas of risk: high, uncalculated and low. Most applications
(80
percent) are low risk, a further 20 percent are uncalculated risk—which means their risk is yet to be identified—and two applications, .home and .corp, have been deemed high risk. Te level of concern corresponds to how regularly the names are already queried.
To mitigate these problems, ICANN is proposing different measures for each category. Te .home and .corp gTLDs will not be delegated until applicants can show the level of risk should be downgraded, according to an ICANN report in response to the study.
For the uncalculated risk applications, of which .hsbc is one, ICANN will conduct a review, expected to take between three and six months, to assess what measures are required to ensure the strings are safe.
“While this study is being conducted, ICANN would not allow delegation of the strings in this category ... At the same time, an applicant for these strings can work towards resolving the issues that prevented their proposed string from being categorised as low risk,” the report said.
ICANN will delegate the low risk applications only aſter implementing measures to mitigate the collision risk. Registries will not be able to activate any names (although they can accept registrations) until at
least 120 days aſter signing a registry
agreement. Ten, once a TLD is delegated on to the public Internet, no names can be activated for at least 30 days.
Stéphane Van Gelder, former head of ICANN’s decision-making body for gTLDs, the Generic
Names Supporting Organization council, said the study has proved controversial with some portfolio applicants who have strongly denied that there is a problem with name collisions.
“Tey say name collisions happen all the time, no-one makes a fuss, no-one suggests domain names should be taken down, so why are we making a fuss now?” he said.
“It does raise the question: is there an ulterior motive or are we protecting the stability of the Internet? Te answer is I don’t know. But I would err on the side of caution—that ICANN is being careful about Internet security.”
Van Gelder said, however, that ICANN’s management in the late stages of the process “reeks of amateurism”.
One source, speaking off the record, said he felt sorry for the applicants in the unclassified risk group who have “been leſt in limbo”, and urged ICANN to “harness resources to get people off this list”.
“Tere is a huge goodwill to fix the problem,” he said. “Tere will be frustration, but this can be reduced by effective engagement.”
Just Fab and
Fab.com square off in trademark row
Online fashion store Just Fab has stung rival website
Fab.com with a host of legal claims including trademark infringement.
In a complaint filed at the US District Court for the Central District of California, Just Fab alleges that “
Fab.com’s unauthorised use of the confusingly similar mark, ‘Fab’, is likely to confuse, to cause mistake or to deceive”.
Founded in 2010,
Justfab.com sells a wide range of goods including shoes and bags, and its owners are planning to open a “bricks and mortar” site soon in California, according to the July 24 complaint.
Te suit notes that fellow e-commerce site
fab.com began as a gay social networking site (
fabulis.com) but was “not successful”. Specifically, it claims, the founders of
fabulis.com changed their business model and domain name in 2011 aſter seeing the success of
justfab.com.
Just Fab lists several similarities between the sites, including the offering of well designed goods at bargain prices and the use of a membership network.
8
Fab.com’s stylised trademark, comprising the word Fab and a heart design in the lower portion of a box, is visually similar to the ‘Just Fab’ trademark, the complaint contends.
It adds: “In adopting the ‘Fab’ mark for its website,
Fab.com intended to appropriate and trade off Just Fab’s goodwill, and the reputation and selling power of its ‘Just Fab’ marks, including by capturing initial consumer attention and the resulting marketplace confusion.”
Just Fab wants the court to triple an award of any profits
Fab.com has derived from the alleged wilful infringement and for its rival to stop selling competing fashion goods on the
Fab.com website.
Tere are other claims such as unfair competition and false designation of origin.
Analysing the trademark infringement allegations, Jeff Mitchell, partner at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, said he was “not sure how much Fab would infringe on the ‘Just Fab’ mark”.
“It’s certainly understandable what the complaint Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 3
is, but it’s unclear whether the Fab element is strong enough to prevent people using Fab to describe a similar business.
“Tis will turn on secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion,” he said, because the trademarks are not identical.
He added: “Fab has been around for a while and has been associated with the gay community.”
Just Fab has bought other fashion sites using the name ‘Fab’, including Fab Kids and the Fab Shoes, but despite having a reported cash pile of nearly $110 million,
Fab.com has been valued in some quarters at about $1 billion, making it a very expensive purchase.
Fab.com did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokesman told the news website Tech Crunch: “Our attorneys are currently reviewing the complaint ... While we are not in a position to comment with any specificity on the allegations we will aggressively defend our brand, products, and services offered to our customers worldwide.”
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