Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions

Similar documents
Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes

Summary Judgment Motions: Advanced Strategies for Civil Litigation

DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (BGC) RECONSIDERATION REQUEST APRIL 2014

Leveraging USPTO Technology Evolution Pilot Program

Defeating Liability Waivers in Personal Injury Cases: Substantive and Procedural Strategies

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Satya Narayan, Attorney, Royse Law Firm, Palo Alto, Calif.

Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit

Provisional Patent Applications: Preserving IP Rights in First-to-File System

Attachment to Module 3

Patent Licensing: Advanced Tactics

Deposing Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Witnesses

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

HIPAA Compliance During Litigation and Discovery

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:

Defeating Rule 23(b)(3)'s Predominance Requirement Using Defenses and Counterclaims

Article III Standing and Rule 23(b)(3) Certification: Emerging Litigation Trends

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

gtld Applicant Guidebook (v ) Module 3

26 th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference

Insurance Declaratory Judgment Actions and the Federal Abstention Doctrine: Strategies and Limitations

Environmental Obligations in Bankruptcy: Reconciling the Conflicting Goals of Bankruptcy and Environmental Laws

Mexico's New Anti-Corruption Laws and Implementing Regulations: Private Entities and Individuals in the Crosshairs

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Michael A. Brusca, Shareholder, Stark & Stark, Lawrenceville, N.J.

Patent Infringement Claims and Opinions of Counsel Leveraging Opinion Letters to Reduce the Risks of Liability and Enhanced Damages

Strategic Use of Joint Defense Agreements in Litigation: Avoiding Disqualification and Privilege Waivers

Litigating Employment Discrimination

Rendering Third-Party Legal Opinions on LLC Status, Power, Action, Enforceability and Membership Interests

Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles

Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act and Protection of IP Rights: Pursuing Foreign Infringers

The new gtlds - rights protection mechanisms

INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties

Structuring Trademark Coexistence Agreements: Evaluating and Negotiating Agreements to Resolve Trademark Disputes

New Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure: Impact on Chapter 7, 12 and 13 Secured Creditors

Law Amendment and the FCPA Best Practices for Responding to a Chinese Government Commercial Bribery Investigation

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

E-Discovery and Spoliation Issues: Litigation Pitfalls, Duty to Preserve, and Claw-Back Agreements

Leveraging the AIA s Joinder Provision, Recent Decisions, and New Court Procedures in Defending Infringement Disputes

(a) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN s Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies);

Spoliation of Evidence in Personal Injury Claims: Mitigation and Prevention

New ERISA Supreme Court Rulings in Conkright and Hardt Leveraging Court Guidance on Deferential Review Standards and Attorney Fee Awards

Annex to NGPC Resolution NG01. NGPC Scorecard of 1As Regarding Non- Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué

REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 REVISED - NOVEMBER 2010

Standards Related Patents and Standard Setting Organizations Navigating the Challenges of SSOs: Licensing, Disclosure and Litigation

TRADEMARK POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (TRADEMARK PDDRP) 4 JUNE 2012

Applicant Guidebook. Proposed Final Version Module 3

*,MERCK. Date. Phone Fax j02013

For GNSO Consideration: Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) October 2009

Third-Party Legal Opinions in Corporate Transactions

Leveraging Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB

Appellate Practice: Identifying Issues for Appeal, Drafting Questions Presented, and Briefing the Issues

Evidentiary Disclosures in Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings

BETWEEN CORN LAKE, LLC. Claimant. -and- INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS. Respondent FINAL DECLARATION

Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation

Navigating Jurisdictional Determinations Under the Clean Water Act: Impact of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 19 SEPTEMBER 2011

Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Nonbinding Legal Documents

Reconsideration Request by Ruby Pike, LLC. Ruby Pike, LLC, as a party adversely affected by an ICANN action...

Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Patent Reexamination: The New Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings

Case 1:15-cv JFA Document 13 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 90

INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ICDR) Independent Review Panel CASE #

Pleading Standards, Affirmative Defenses and Motions to Dismiss in Federal Court

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Wilson Chu, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery, Dallas

1. Scope of WIPO Rules for New gtld Dispute Resolution in Relation to Procedure

Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions Responding to a Deposition Notice, Selecting and Preparing Witnesses

Effective Discovery Strategies in Class Action Litigation Leveraging Trends and Best Practices for Depositions, Expert Witnesses and E-Discovery

INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Dominion Registries - Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy

INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

GNSO Working Session on the CWG Rec6 Report. Margie Milam 4 December 2010

Managing Patent Infringement Risk in Product Development

Opinions of Counsel in Cross-Border Financial Transactions

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield

BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS A California Nonprofit Public-Benefit Corporation

Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield

NGPC Agenda 28 September 2013

[.onl] Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy

Top Level Design LLC January 22, 2015

FCRA Class Actions in Employment on the Rise: Avoiding and Defending Claims

.BOSTIK DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION POLICIES

ANNEX 1: Registry Reserved Names. Capitalized terms have the meaning as specified in Article 1 of the.vistaprint Domain Name Registration Policies.

Appeal Bonds and Other Asset Protection: Staying an Adverse Judgment Execution

TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE


NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES ( gtld ) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE OBJECTION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OBJECTOR

Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy VERSION 1.0

UCC Articles 8 and 9 and the Hague Securities Convention: Investment Property Update

Structuring MOUs, LOIs, Term Sheets and Other Preliminary Agreements

Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy

UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION SYSTEM ( URS ) 11 JANUARY 2012

Breach of Employment Contract Litigation: Contract Interpretation, Materiality of Breach, Defenses, Damages

.VIG DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION POLICIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

State Wage and Hour Class Actions Navigating Procedural and Substantive Challenges in Pursuing or Defending Dual Filed Claims

Transcription:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent Guidance THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Paul D. McGrady, Jr., Partner, Winston & Strawn, Chicago Marc H. Trachtenberg, Winston & Strawn, Chicago Robert H. Newman, Winston & Strawn, Chicago The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ sign next to Conference Materials in the middle of the lefthand column on your screen. Click on the tab labeled Handouts that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Decisions Paul D. McGrady, Jr Winston & Strawn LLP pmcgrady@winston.com Marc H. Trachtenberg Winston & Strawn LLP mtrachtenberg@winston.com Robert H. Newman Winston & Strawn LLP rnewman@winston.com

Adverse gtld Application Decisions 6

Status of Application Process 7

Adverse Application Evaluation Decisions by ICANN 37 Applications in Extended Evaluation Common Reasons for Rejection Failure to provide financial statements Geographic name and missing required documentation of support/non-objection Funding critical registry functions Certain technical failures 8

Adverse GAC Advice GAC is ICANN s Govermental Advisory Committee Made up of representatives from governments of participating countries Per the AGB, GAC Advice may take one of the following 3 forms: 1. The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. 2. The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application 3. The GAC advises ICANN that an application should not proceed unless remediated. 9

Effect of Adverse GAC Advice Advice that an application should not proceed Strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved or should not be approved unless there is a remediation method available in the Guidebook Advice that there is a concern about an application The Board should enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. BUT ICANN Board Makes the final determination The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. 10

Effect of Adverse GAC Advice (continued) Exclusive Access Registries on Beijing Communique List suspended unless File PIC stating that no longer exclusive access Applications not approved.africa.gcc 11

What Can the Applicant Do? Withdraw application Request reconsideration ICANN Bylaws do contain processes for reconsideration and independent review of ICANN actions/inaction Article IV, Section 2 of ICANN Bylaws 12

Reconsideration Who Can Request it? Any person or entity may submit a request reconsideration or review of an ICANN action or inaction ("Reconsideration Request") to the extent that he, she, or it have been adversely affected by one or more staff actions or inactions that contradict established ICANN policy(ies); or one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the party submitting the request could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or one or more actions or inactions of the ICANN Board that are taken as a result of the Board's reliance on false or inaccurate material information 13

Reconsideration How to Request It Requestor must acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions set forth in the form when filing Request limited to 25 pages, double-spaced and in 12 point font Must include: Grounds for standing to make the request Grounds supporting request What specific steps you are asking ICANN to take Hearings are not required but may be requested. The BGC retains the absolute discretion to determine whether a hearing is appropriate, and to call people before it for a hearing. The ICANN Board of Director s decision on the BGC s reconsideration recommendation is final and not subject to a reconsideration request. 14

Reconsideration Timing Request must be filed within 15 days of Board or staff action/inaction Board Governance Committee (BGC) reviews Request to see if sufficiently stated If BGC determines that Request does not meet requirements, it may be summarily dismissed BGC makes final recommendation to Board OR reports on why no final recommendation available within 30 days of Request Board issues its decision within 60 days of request (or as soon thereafter as feasible) 15

Reconsideration Cost ICANN shall absorb the normal administrative costs of the reconsideration process. It reserves the right to recover from a party requesting review or reconsideration any costs that are deemed to be extraordinary in nature. When such extraordinary costs can be foreseen, that fact and the reasons why such costs are necessary and appropriate to evaluating the Reconsideration Request shall be communicated to the party seeking reconsideration, who shall then have the option of withdrawing the request or agreeing to bear such costs. 16

Adverse gtld Dispute Mechanism Decisions 17

Types gtld Objections 4 Types of Public Objections String Confusion Objection The applied-for gtld string is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another applied for gtld string in the same round of applications. Legal Rights Objection The applied-for gtld string infringes the existing legal rights of the objector. Limited Public Interest Objection 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 Objection 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. 18

Objection Process Objections filed electronically by March 14, 2013 with Dispute Resolution Service Providers (DRSPs) String Confusion International Centre for Dispute Reslolution Legal Rights World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO) Limited Public Interest - International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Community - International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Administrative Review of Objection for compliance with procedural rules within 14 days If meets requirements, Notice to Applicant of Objection Applicant has 30 days to file a response 19

Objection Process (continued) DSRP appoints a Panel of Experts Panel may request additional submissions from parties Panel issues a determination within 45 days Panel may request an extension of time 20

Effect of Panel Determination When objector prevails: String Confusion Objections: Contention set will be updated Other Objections: Application will not be approved Applicant may withdraw for a partial refund When applicant prevails or objection is terminated: Application may proceed to the next Program phases 21

Current Status of Objections 22

ICANN Options if You Lose No good ICANN options Appeal No appeal option in ICANN gtld Objection process No appeal option in DRSP rules Reconsideration But not clear if adverse Panel decision constitutes ICANN action or ICANN inaction Arguments made in Requests filed so far include:» Acceptance of Panel determination is Board action» Panel determination is the result ICANN s inaction in providing clear and well-defined standards to the DRSPs 23

Reconsideration Who Has Filed Hotel Top Level Domain S.a.r.l. (filed 8/23/2013) Request for reconsideration of String Confusion Objection Panel determination that there is no confusion between its application for.hotel and the application for.hotels DISH DBS Corp. (filed 8/23/2013) Request for reconsideration of Legal Rights Objection Panel determination that its.direct application infringed the rights of competitor DirecTV Group Inc. Merck KGaA (filed 8/30/2013) Request for reconsideration of New gtld program Committee s decision to allow a grace period for filing of Objections, which resulted in its competitor, Merck & Co. s Community Objection filed 10 minutes after the deadline being deemed timely 24

Reconsideration Who Has Filed Amazon EU S.á.r.l.(filed 9/3/2013) Request for reconsideration of String Confusion Objection Panel determination that its application for. 通販, which is Japanese for Online Shopping, is too similar to.shop. Tencent Holdings Limited (filed 9/14/2013) Request for reconsideration of Legal Rights Objection Panel determination that its applications for. 微博 and.weibo infringe the trademarks rights of its rival Sina 25

Other Options if You Lose File Suit gtld application terms prohibit suing ICANN Applicant agrees not to challenge, in court or in any other judicial fora, any final decision made by ICANN with respect to the application, and irrevocably waives any right to sue or proceed in court or any other judicial for a on the basis of any other legal claim against ICANN and ICANN affiliated parties with respect to the application They do not prohibit suing other parties But likely only useful option for Legal Rights Objections At least one applicant has done so Merck KGaA has filed suit against Merck & Co. in District Court in Hamburg, Germany and the UK over its applications for.merck and.emerck 26

Adverse UDRP Decisions 27

Options if you Lose A UDRP - Complainant Seek a settlement agreement Re-file the UDRP Complaint Burden is on the Complainant to prove that it should have the right to re-file Otherwise, a panelist will reject the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata Burden is high if against same party If new complaint is based on acts that occurred after the prior decision, panelists have allowed the complaint to be re-filed Subsequent registration of trademark Subsequent success on trademark infringement claims If new respondent, should be permitted to proceed, though panelists do not always agree 28

Options if you Lose A UDRP Complainant (continued) Alternatively, file a lawsuit under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act UDRP decisions are unlikely to be given the deference courts normally afford arbitration decisions UDRP proceeds are non-mandatory and not intended to replace formal litigation First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have all concurred in this position. See Sallen v. Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA, 273 F.3d 14, 28 (1st Cir. 2001); Storey v. Cello Holdings, L.L.C., 347 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2003); Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3 rd Cir. 2003); Retail Servs. v. Freebies Publ'g, 364 F.3d 535, 540-541 (4th Cir. 2004) 29

Options if you Lose A UDRP - Respondent Seek a settlement agreement File a lawsuit under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act within 10 days This will stay the implementation of the decision (e.g. transfer of the domain name) File a lawsuit under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act after 10 days 30

Thank you! 31