Domain Suspension
The following letter was submitted to the Comments section of the ICANN forum to address the lopsided Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URSS) system developed by TM holders without input from domain owners and their interests.

Trademark Abuse
We do not advocate or support TM infringment and suggest stiff penalties for flagrant abuse by a registrant, but this policy goes too far in allowing a complaintant TM holder to shut down a domain without evidence or proper due process. This recommendation only applies to the new gTLDs being proposed but the danger (and recommendation by the IRT) is to extend it reach to current gTLD .com, .net etc.

Why should I care?
This issue may affect anyone who registers a name with a close relation to a standing TM, regardless of infringment. We suggest you read the recommendations and make your public comments by July 6th to ensure that your voice is heard. Thank you.

Link to the ICANN Forum IRT discussion: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irt-report

Our Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the IRT recommendations. My concerns are with the URSS and it’s potential for abuse and incorrect application. The complexity of trademark infringement cannot be determined by the simple registration of a domain name. All parties have a right to pursue a name and business opportunities that have a legitimate and non-infringing purpose.

Last Names, First Names, Nicknames, Geographies, Generic Terms (and the list goes on and on) represent marks that are TMed but also have alternate rights/uses. It is the CONTENT and CONTEXT with how that name is used that enables a determination of infringement, NOT the use of the name itself. The onus is on the TM holder to prove infringement and if so proven, exacting a stiff penalty from the abuser. That is why it is called defending and protecting your mark, rather than imposing your mark. It need not be difficult, but it should require a minimum of evidence.

Please reconsider how the URSS is applied, and err on the side of caution rather than alarm. The policy should protect the rights of all, not just companies with lawyers who file preemptively–without PROVEN cause. Also abuse by those who file frivolously should be addressed and dealt with harshly to dissuade. Thank you.

Sincerely,

FreshAvails.com