1. Protecting your brand in the new gTLD
environment
David Taylor, Partner, Hogan Lovells Domain Name Practice
david.taylor@hoganlovells.com
Newdomains.org – The Munich Conference on new TLDs
Monday 26 September 2011

2. Introduction
• Part I Setting the scene
– The domain name industry today
– Brand protection in the current TLDs and generics
• Part II New gTLDs
– Preparing for the launch of new gTLDs
• background
• concerns to IP owners
• trade mark protection
• considering a .brand
www.hoganlovells.com 2

3. Part I Setting the scene
– The domain name industry today
– Brand protection in the current TLDs and generics

4. A few preliminary questions…
• Who has filed a UDRP complaint as a brand owner or as counsel?
• Who has had a UDRP filed against them?
• Who has attended an ICANN meeting?
• Who has read the AGB?
• What is the first word on page 258 of the "Final" AGB…
• "Litigation"….
www.hoganlovells.com 4

5. Developments in the last decade some "new" gTLDs already
• The original magnificent 7
• .com; .net; .org; .int; .gov; .mil; .edu
• The 2000 group of 7
• .aero; .coop; .museum; .biz; .info; .name; .pro
• The 2004 group of 7
• .asia; .cat; .jobs; .mobi; .post; .tel; .travel
• In 2011
• .xxx
• 2012 onwards group of... 7? 70? 700?
www.hoganlovells.com 5

6. Domain name registrations today
• Two kinds of TLDs (Top Level Domains)
– Generic (gTLDs)
• 22 gTLDs
– Country Code (ccTLDs)
• 273 ccTLDs
• In 1992 fewer than 15,000 dotCOM domain names registered
• Today we have circa 200 million...
• Eligibility requirements vary widely in the ccTLDs
www.hoganlovells.com 6

7. Variation of pre-registration requirements across the EU
• Unrestricted
• Partially restricted
• Restricted
www.hoganlovells.com 7

8. ccTLDs in the EU today
• 55 ccTLD extensions
No restrictions: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, UK
• ccTLD registrations in EU now 45 million
– Nearly 1/4 of total worldwide registrations
– cf June 2007 nearly 30 million
• EU not intended to replace ccTLDs
– 3.4 million registered today
• Most popular:
– .com, .de, .net, .uk, .org, .cn, .info, .nl, .eu and .ru
www.hoganlovells.com 8

9. Top Ten EU Member States' Domain Name Registrations
as at December 2010
Sweden
1,061,500
Denmark
United Kingdom 1.104.700
9,005,700
Netherlands
4,202,300 Poland
Belgium 2,003,800
1,104,100
Germany
14,038,400
France
1,903,900
Italy
2,047, 100
Spain
1,257, 200
www.hoganlovells.com

10. Dispute Resolution Policies across the EU
• 13 ccTLDs have adopted UDRP or variation of it
(.co.uk, .it, .be, .dk, .fr, .es, .ie, .lv, .cy, .ro, .nl, .si, .hu)
• 9 ccTLDs have no ADR at all
(.de, .gr, .fi, .sk, .ee, .lt, .lu, .mt, .bg)
• 3 ccTLDs are subject to arbitration
(.pl, .cz, .pt)
• 2 ccTLDs have specific ADR rules (.at, .se)
www.hoganlovells.com 10

11. The problems brands face today
• "The sale and broad expansion of new TLDs in the open
market, if not properly managed, will provide abundant
opportunities for cybersquatters to seize old ground in new
domains"
– Francis Gurry, WIPO: 16 March 2009
www.hoganlovells.com 11

12. www.hoganlovells.com

13. www.hoganlovells.com

14. www.hoganlovells.com

15. UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) - WIPO figures
• 55 ccTLDs have adopted (a variation of) the UDRP
• More than 17,000 cases covering 32,000 domain names
• In 2010 the highest ever, with 2696 cases
• In 2011 1958 cases to date
www.hoganlovells.com 15

16. Geographical distribution of parties gTLDs (to May 2010)
Up
Up
www.hoganlovells.com

17. Domain name dispute resolution today
• Global problem
• Not every country makes use of the UDRP
• Variation in domain name dispute mechanisms across
the EU
• A tendency towards Fast Track Procedures
– WIPO, URS, CAC, Nominet, AFNIC
www.hoganlovells.com

18. It is complex today – and it is going to get
worse tomorrow...
- already costly and complex to either defensively register or
enforce
- increased number of TLDs = more opportunities for
cybersquatters
- here we go again
- clear need for TM protection mechanisms
and the world and the internet have changed...
www.hoganlovells.com

19. Another factor to consider:
the value of ‘‘generic’’ domain names today
www.hoganlovells.com 19

20. The value of ‘‘generic’’ domain names today
• flowers.com (October 2006) • clothes.com (May 2008)
US$ 1.5 million US$ 4.9 million
• vodka.com (December 2006) • toys.com (February 2009)
US$ 3 million US$ 5.1 million
• diamond.com (May 2006) • slots.com (April 2010)
US$ 7.5 million US$ 5.5 million
• fund.com (March 2008) • sex.com (November 2010)
US$ 10 million US$ 13 million
www.hoganlovells.com 20

21. www.hoganlovells.com 21

22. Current issues for brand owners
• Automatic registration software
• Growth of registrations across existing TLDs
• Cost of bringing action before courts
• Variation of dispute resolution policies
• IDNs
• Abuse in the DNS
– Cybersquatting, Front-running, Gripe sites, Fake renewal notices, Name
spinning, Pay-per-click, Traffic diversion, False affiliation, Domain kiting / tasting,
false WHOIS
• Many new gTLDs for 2012 and beyond
 Consumer confusion
 Mulitiplication of Threats to IPR holders
www.hoganlovells.com 22

23. Part II new gTLDs – a changing landscape
– Preparing for the launch of new gTLDs
• background, concerns to IP owners, trade mark protection
– Pros and Cons of applying
• opportunities of considering a .brand
– Timing

24. Preparing for the launch of new gTLDs
Background
Concerns to IP owners
Trademark protection
Threats and opportunities

25. A shake up of the DNS and Internet in 2012
• The launch of new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs) in
2012 is likely to cause an unprecedented shake up to the
domain name system and the Internet.
• Whilst the aim is to enhance diversity, choice, competition
and innovation, it will inevitably cause a considerable
burden on rights owners across the globe who will need to
carefully reconsider their online strategies.
www.hoganlovells.com 25

26. Why?
• "to enhance competition and promote choice and
innovation"
Looking for a hotel in Munich?
www.hotels.com?
www.hotels.de?
www.munich.hotels?
www.hotels.munich?
or just use Yahoo Google or Bing!?
www.hoganlovells.com 26

27. What are new gTLDs?
• Announcement by ICANN to allow an unlimited number of new gTLDs on 26
June 2008
• A first draft applicant guidebook was issued in October 2008
• Seven subsequent drafts have followed
• "Final" AGB published on 19 September 2011
• Both a threat and an opportunity to business and brand owners
– Some 170 applicants are making noises that they will be applying
– How many will apply but are keeping quiet?
www.hoganlovells.com 27

28. City domain applicants
www.hoganlovells.com 28

29. Regional domain applicants
www.hoganlovells.com 29

30. Industries, goods and services, lifestyle and keywords
www.hoganlovells.com 30

31. Are brand owners going to be left out in the cold this winter?
www.hoganlovells.com 31

32. .brand applicants
.hitachi
www.hoganlovells.com 32

33. Not for Profits
“Taking the long view, as time goes on a name such as www.donations.unicef
and www.cards.unicef will become more intuitive in a more crowded Internet,
and thus more valuable because the name reflects exactly that of an
organization and declares what it does.”
- June 2010 RFP
www.hoganlovells.com 33

34. Concerns to IP owners...
• Potential for significant increase in cybersquatting at the
second level and increase of defensive registration and
dispute costs
• eg olympics.london
• eg microsoft.web
• eg louisvuitton.paris
• Risk of cybersquatting at the top level?
– Not really
• Risk of permanent string preclusion at the top level
– Quite possible for instance .ALAN preventing .ELLEN
www.hoganlovells.com 34

35. Existing RPMs
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
UDRP
www.hoganlovells.com 35

36. A need for new ones?
• "to develop and propose solutions to the overarching
issue of trademark protection in connection with the
introduction of new gTLDs"
– the task of the IRT March 2009
www.hoganlovells.com 36

37. Timeline – TM protection and a bumpy ride for RPMs
• Feb 2009 ICANN Mexico City ‐IP Community requests enhanced trademark solutions
• Mar 2009 Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) formed and given 8 weeks
• May 2009 IRT Report published and proposed new trademark solutions
• Summer 2009 Global Consultation (Sydney, New York, Hong Kong, and Abu Dhabi). General
support for certain IRT recommendations, with modifications
• Nov 2009 Board sought GNSO input on expedited basis on several TM solutions
• Dec 2009 GNSO formed Special Trademark Issues (STI) drafting team reaches consensus
on revised trademark solutions
• Dec 2009 GNSO unanimously approves STI Recommendations
• Feb 2010 Revised Models & Explanatory Memoranda Posted
• Apr 2010 Final comment period ended
• Sep 2010 INTA letter to ICANN Board stressing need for resolution of TM issues
• 2011 Continued discussion / pressure / GAC / IP lobby
• 19 Sep 2011 "Final" Applicant Guidebook
www.hoganlovells.com 37

38. The problems and proposed solutions...
• Cost and administrative burden to rights owners of reacting to
Sunrise & other RPMs
• Trademark clearing house
• Cybersquatting continues, consumers misled, UDRP & Courts
take time and money
• URS
• What to do with a registry operator who acts inconsistently with
representations or has bad faith intent to profit from systemic
cybersquatting.
• PDDRP
• No single source availability of data
• Thick whois
www.hoganlovells.com 38

39. URS – "Rapid" became "Redundant" now "Replenished"
Day 0 Complaint to provider (Form complaint, TM + grounds + whois + 500 words)
Day 3 Administrative Review Complete
Day 4 Notification to registry operator
Day 5 Domain name locked
Day 6 Notification to registrant eUDRP (WIPO)
Nokia Corporation v. Jameela Seif
Case D2009-1665
Filed 14 December 2009, decision 18 January 2010
= 35 days
Day 20 Response due date
Day 27 Extension possible for Response date
Day 32 Decision date goal (i.e. 5 days but goal is 3 days)
In previous versions had reached 47 days… Still possibility for appeal
Review of URS after 1 year
www.hoganlovells.com 39

40. The solutions proposed
Trademark Clearing
House
Post
Uniform Delegation
Rapid Dispute
Suspension Resolution
Procedure
GPML
Thick WHOIS
www.hoganlovells.com 40

41. The opportunity for brands
The possibility of registering .brand: the opportunity that
mirrors the challenge

42. Application overview
• Rigorous
– US$185,000 application fee
– Application form with 50 questions requiring detailed answers
• Application likely to be in the region of 100+ pages in length
• Rigorous technical (including IPv6 and DNSSEC), financial, and business
operation questions
– External evaluation by industry experts
– Substantial financial resources needed to operate or pay for outsourced
operation
– Applicants need to provide funds in escrow or letter of credit to operate the
TLD for ≥ three years following a business failure
• Potential additional fees associated with the application process (e.g.
Extended evaluation fee (US$ 50,000), Objection fees or dispute
resolution filing fees (from US$ 1,000 to 5,000 per party per proceeding).
www.hoganlovells.com 42

43. Some potential Pros of applying for a .brand
• New gTLDs will allow you to be in charge of your own brand gTLD
• You will have control of second level domain names under potential new gTLDs
(ANYTHING.BRAND)
• Protect IPR – currently no co-existence, may also provide a broader protection of the
brand: If .BRAND is registered, new gTLD strings that are confusingly similar may not be
permitted
• Enhance online brand promotion and visibility, defend assets and market position
• First mover advantage - ICANN plans round after round of new gTLDs: this is the first
stage of a long-term plan - early adopters have at least a 3-5 year advantage
• Secure corporate and client networks (this could facilitate the provision of services to
clients via a dedicated portal)
www.hoganlovells.com 43

44. Some potential Pros of applying (continued)
• Help prevent fraudulent practices such as counterfeit products/films through the Internet
• Not losing ground to competitors and potentially being left behind as new gTLDs
establish themselves in the future as branding moves to the right of the dot
• Potential platform for innovation. Running an open registry could be profitable
• Risk of Permanent String Preclusion
– To ensure prevention of user confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from
delegation of many similar strings into the root zone.
– Any string yielding a similarity level of 30% or above is cited.
– If Brand ELLEN did not apply and an application for a string similar to .ELLEN was accepted in
the first round, such as .ALAN, then an application for .ELLEN could potentially be precluded in
subsequent rounds of application as would be too similar to an existing TLD.
www.hoganlovells.com 44

45. Some Cons of applying
• Uncertainty in relation to the success of these new gTLDs and adoption of this new
model by Internet users, search engines... a dead dodo?
• .COM value here to stay in medium term as the premium domain name space
• No one knows what competitors will do and what will become industry best practice
• Relatively high costs of application and operation (circa US$ 1 million to US$1.5 million
over 2011 to 2016)
• Will need considerable management focus over the next 24 months
• ICANN has developed this for communities and investors not brand owners
• Waiting until the second round likely less expensive to apply, rely on objection process
www.hoganlovells.com 45

46. Business plan - considerations
• What do you intend to achieve by registering the new gTLD?
• What are the business drivers behind the new gTLD application?
• Need to provide thorough answers to ensure sufficient basis for evaluation
• What are competitors or conflicting third parties doing? What are the potential
outcomes of disputes?
• How will the new gTLD be run?
– Standard or Community gTLD?
– Will anyone be able to apply for a registration?
– What RPMs will you employ? (TCH, URS, PDDRP, WHOIS)
– Will it only be available to your customers?
– Will it be only used for internal corporate IT infrastructure and web presence?
– Will you offer IDNs at the second level?
– Who will Abuse point of contact be?
• How will the ownership and operation of a new gTLD fit with your current
businesses?
www.hoganlovells.com 46

47. Anticipated timeline for new gTLDs
30 May 2011
Version 7 AGB 20 June 2011
published
ICANN meeting in 19 September
Singapore and 2011
"Final" Applicant 12 January 2012
Board approval
Guidebook Application window
Published opens for 3 months
End 2012 through 2013 and beyond
www.hoganlovells.com 47

48. Conclusion
• New gTLDs are coming
• Likely to cause a radical shake up in the DNS
• A threat to brand owners: Brands need to reassess defensive
registration stratgey, portfolio and budgets
• An opportunity for some brand owners: Brands need to fully consider
whether to apply or not, all of the pros and cons
• The application window is set, 12 January 2012 for 90 days: don't leave
it till the last minute to apply!
• I would estimate that over 50% of applications will come from brands
www.hoganlovells.com 48

49. To ponder...
If Toys"R"Us willing to pay US$ 5.1 million for toys.com
perhaps US$ 500,000 to US$ 1 million for .TOYS is not so much?
www.hoganlovells.com 49

50. New gTLDs – who needs to bother? A game of cat and mouse?
Well my cat is preparing...
Thank you for your attention
www.hoganlovells.com 50

51. 11.45 Panel session – protecting brands in new gTLDs
• Valentina Schulte-Braucks
• TM attorney at Noerr LLP, "TMs in jeopardy: Is .com Old news?"
• Dr Markus Bahmann
• TM attorney, member of the INTA Internet Committee, MD of .BAYERN
• Dr Torsten Bettinger
• TM attorney, member of legal advisory board for .DE, WIPO panelist
• Jonathan Robinson
• Not a TM attorney, founder of IPRota Ltd for TLD support, ICANN GNSO Council
• Moderator: David Taylor
www.hoganlovells.com 51