Advertisement

May 22, 2013

New Domain Name Registry Application Period Now Open Though Critics Urge Delay

On Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began accepting applications from private- and public-sector entities and organizations to obtain nearly any combination of words as their own generic top-level domain name (gTLD) registry. ICANN will only accept applications for new gTLD registries for a 90-day period, concluding on April 12, 2012. The plan will drastically increase the number of available gTLDs from the currently available 22 gTLDs (e.g., .com, .net. and .org) to potentially thousands of gTLDs (e.g., .clothing, .sports, or .yourbrand). With the opening of the application period, public and private sector outcry and dissent concerning the program has started to bubble up to mainstream consciousness.

In particular, the U.S. Department of Commerce has been reviewing the pending expansion after recently obtaining input from numerous sectors of industry regarding the potential shortcomings of the program. In November 2011, an alliance of 87 business groups, organizations and companies wrote a letter to Commerce Secretary John Bryson requesting that the Department urge ICANN to postpone the opening of the gTLD expansion application period. In light of record high levels of domain name dispute filings in 2010, the coalition believes that ICANN should delay implementing the expansion until it can confidently demonstrate that the plan will enhance consumer trust, boost Internet security, create economic benefits across many sectors and show that the benefits outweigh the costs of the expansion. The coalition is led by the Association of National Advertisers and the letter’s signatories include the Intellectual Property Owners Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

In addition, last month, U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, along with Representative Howard Berman, ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Department of Commerce and expressed serious concerns about the dramatic expansion of gTLDs and urged the Department to encourage ICANN to undertake additional evaluation and review before initiating the robust expansion. They relayed concerns that brand owners will be forced to assume significant legal expenses to monitor and protect their trademarks and to obtain defensive registrations in light of an unprecedented number of new top-level domain names. The Representatives argued that consumers will be harmed as many of the legal expenses will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In addition, they are concerned that, as a result of the expansion, counterfeiting and piracy rates will continue to rise. They encouraged the Department of Commerce to delay the rollout until a sufficient analysis and evaluation is conducted, and until the Department is satisfied the benefits of the rollout exceed the costs and risks to consumers and businesses and to Internet safety and security.

Four commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also sent a letter to ICANN in December urging the delay of the expansion and voicing consumer protection concerns regarding the new gTLDs. The FTC reminded ICANN that ICANN planned to ensure that consumer protection and malicious abuse issues would be adequately addressed. The FTC is particularly worried that the rapid and large-scale expansion will lead to a significant rise in the use of false Whois (domain name ownership) information by domain name registrants, slowing down the FTC’s ability to identify and locate individuals behind fraudulent or counterfeit Web sites. The FTC has proposed a few immediate steps, including the implementation of a gTLD pilot program that would substantially reduce the number of gTLDs accepted in the first application round, and would require ICANN to hire additional compliance staff and impose registrant verification requirements.

Then three weeks ago, just before the Jan. 12 opening of the ICANN application process, a Commerce Department official, Lawrence Strickling, wrote to ICANN regarding some of these concerns. In his letter, Mr. Strickling recognized that the expansion has come after years of preparation and commentary from many stakeholders. However, Mr. Strickling stated that after meeting with industry stakeholders, there is tremendous concern about the expansion that could jeopardize its success. The Commerce Department requested that ICANN take three steps. First, develop a strategy to minimize defensive registrations so that a large number of organizations and entities, concerned about cybersquatting, do not feel forced to obtain defensive gTLD registries (e.g., .theirbrands) without any interest in actually operating a registry. Second, determine whether there is a need to phase in new gTLDs after the application window closes (on April 12th) and evaluate whether additional protection measures are necessary. And, third, better engage with and educate stakeholders as to the purpose and scope of the domain name expansion and available protective resources.

© 2013 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author

Associate

Kathleen E. Blouin practices with the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. Katie focuses her practice on global trademark portfolio management, including clearance, acquisition and prosecution matters, as well as enforcing trademark rights in formal proceedings in the federal courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She has also represented clients in copyright litigation before the United States district courts.

Katie regularly assists clients with brand management through maintenance of their social media pages and policies, as well as...

(312) 827-1074

About the Author

Partner

Lee J. Eulgen has significant experience in intellectual property litigation, negotiation and counseling, including trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, trade dress, domain name, entertainment, unfair competition and privacy-related matters. In particular, Lee has firstchaired myriad intellectual property disputes, and he has handled numerous brand and technology- driven transactions, including sophisticated licensing transactions, as well as mergers, acquisitions, and asset transfers.

In addition, Lee is well versed in strategic global trademark...

312-269-8465

Contributors

Partner

Antony J. McShane focuses his practice in the area of intellectual property counseling and litigation, concentrating on strategic development, protection and enforcement of trademarks, trade dress copyrights and trade secrets and patents.

Tony has represented Fortune 500 companies, emerging technology companies and Internet start-ups in federal and state courts throughout the country, and before administrative tribunals such as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the International Trade Commission. Representations include a variety of intellectual...

312-269-8486

About the Author

Associate

Katherine Dennis Nye focuses her practice on trademark policing and litigation. Kate also counsels clients regarding the clearance, acquisition, protection, and licensing of intellectual property, as well as regarding advertising, sweepstakes, and social media policies.

While in law school, Kate participated in the Child Advocacy Legal Clinic, where she represented children, parents, and foster parents in juvenile court child protection proceedings. She continues to represent children in contested guardianship proceedings as a pro bono Guardian ad Litem...

312-827-1455

About the Author

Partner

Sarah E. Smith counsels clients on a wide variety of intellectual property matters, including trademark, trade dress, domain name, copyright and trade secret issues. Sarah has extensive experience in developing and implementing domain name registration and Internet monitoring and enforcement programs, and has assisted clients in reclaiming scores of domain names through negotiation, litigation and arbitration proceedings under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Sarah also has substantial trademark licensing and associated transactional experience, and frequently advises...

312-269-5257

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.