News, insight and opinions
from Com Laude experts.

The Trademark Clearinghouse: how to use it effectively

With ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) receiving more attention now that it has officially launched and is accepting trademark data deposits, we highlight key Clearinghouse‑related information and strategy questions below.

 
First things first, the Clearinghouse is not a Rights Protection Mechanism. It is a cost management system. It was designed to allow trademark owners to deposit their trademark information into one centrally managed database for a single fee. Historically, new registries (such as .info or .biz, or more recently .xxx) have individually charged rights owners to “validate” the same trademark registration data. Trademark owners told ICANN that this model would not scale to over a thousand new gTLDs, so ICANN created the Clearinghouse to streamline and centralise trademark data validations.

 
Trademarks submitted to and validated by the Clearinghouse can be used, subject to ICANN’s “proof of use” requirements, to participate in new gTLD Sunrises. There is an exclusive 30-day priority period for eligible trademark owners to obtain a domain name matching their trademark prior to general public availability. Many readers will know that these Sunrise registration opportunities are largely used by trademark owners for defensive purposes (i.e., to pre-empt cybersquatters).

 
In addition to Sunrises, ICANN will require new gTLD registries to provide a Trademark Claims service. Claims are a 90-day period following Sunrise where trademark owners are notified via the Clearinghouse of any domain registrations in new gTLDs that match their marks (however, this notification occurs after the registration and does not block a potentially infringing registration from occurring in the first place).

 
In developing a Clearinghouse strategy, some things you should consider:

  • Which marks to submit: Review the unrestricted registries where you need protection (clients should feel free to ask us for an up-to-date list). Do they have a nexus requirement; for example, if you want protection in the .paris and .berlin registries, do you have one mark covering both jurisdictions or will you need to submit two marks? Do your preferred marks carry up-to-date ownership details? Will there be issues around assignees? What proof of use will you supply (mandatory if you want to participate in a new gTLD Sunrise)?
  • Timing: Deloitte, the validation provider, has said that it takes them 20 calendar days to process an application. ICANN requires new registries to give 30 days’ notice before they open. A ten-day margin is not much. The active life of your Clearinghouse submission will commence when the first registry goes live. As new gTLDs are launched on a rolling basis, you may not need to use the Clearinghouse until 18 months from now, or you may be interested in the very first batch of new gTLDs.
  • Subscription options: How long do you wish to subscribe your mark to the Clearinghouse? Deloitte are offering one, three, and five year options. As every new registry should be open within two years, a one year subscription may be too short but three may be too long.
  • Whether to use an agent: Whether you will liaise directly with the Clearinghouse or partner with us, an intermediary. If you go straight to the Clearinghouse yourself, you should be ready to pay Deloitte directly via credit card, and you can only pay for ten registrations at a time (apparently for security). If you wish to act as an agent, you must pre-pay a $15,000 deposit to the Clearinghouse. You will also be required to store and manage Signed Marked Data (SMD) files.
  • Trademark Claims notices: Who in your organisation will receive these notices across the 90 days for which they last? How will you react if a registration is made by a third-party regardless of a Claims notice? Have you got a list of up to 50 abused “brand-plus” terms (such as “lego-toys”) that have been the subject of UDRP or Court Actions on which you can also receive claims notices? What happens if such terms are applied for in the .auto registry when your registrations are in Class 15 for Musical Instruments?
  • Costs: Deloitte have developed a complex pricing structure. The official fees are $150 for a single mark for one year, $435 for three years, and $725 for five years. Renewal costs are the same as submission costs (which in our view is unjustifiably steep, as re-validation is not very arduous). Our fees start at £80, and we are pleased to offer volume discounts and preferential rates for existing clients.

Finally, remember that the Clearinghouse is a floor not a ceiling. Inclusion in the Clearinghouse does not necessarily mean that you will be able to participate in the first phase of every Sunrise. Some registries will, for example, be prioritising marks owned by local companies before anyone else.

For more information, contact tmch@comlaude.com.

Leave a comment

Com Laude Newsletters

Missed an issue of our Newsletter? Here are the back issues available to download:

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2013 (PDF 1.58mb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs: the road ahead
• ccTLD updates from Australia to the UK
• The URS and the Trademark Clearinghouse explained

Com Laude Newsletter Winter 2012 (PDF 1.15mb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs Update
• Trademark Clearinghouse information
• Other gTLD, ccTLD and Dispute News

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2012 (PDF 847kb)

In this issue:
• Update on the new gTLDs: application trends, new timelines & what’s next
• ccTLD round-up from China to the UK by way of Kazakhstan, Oman and Italy plus more
• Domain count launch of .post, auction overview and comment on new ICANN CEO

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2012 (PDF 530kb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs – the beginning of the end
• WIPO reports on cybersquatting while speculators cry foul at UDRP provider
• ccTLD updates & the search for the new ICANN CEO

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2011 (PDF 283kb)

In this issue:
• A Guide to the new gTLDs and a Turn Key application
service
• .XXX stats, ccTLD updates,WIPO & NAF UDRP Overview

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2011 (PDF 549kb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs six months away?
• .xxx launch plans
• ccTLD updates including IDNs, .no & .ru
• WIPO & NAF reports & UDRP review


Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2010
 (PDF 278kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN Board advances New gTLDs
• What will a new gTLD cost?
• A Clearinghouse launches
• ccTLD updates & new Arab UDRP provider

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2010 (PDF 773kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN:DAG4 analysed, trade mark protections, reasons to apply, issues if you do & the application process explained
• .xxx advances responsibly
• ccTLD updates & unwinding the UDRP

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2010 (PDF 426kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN: EOI cancelled; .xxx report; first Dot Brand applicant; whois accuracy
• 25 years of .com & domain name count
• ccTLD updates including .co RPM & whois restrictions in .es, .lu & .nl

 

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2009 (PDF 227kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN: new gTLDs delayed after Affirmation of Commitments but IDN ccTLDs fast tracked
• 20 facts about the new gTLD application process & Legal Rights Objections
• WIPO & CAC amend UDRP process
• ccTLD updates include Australia,Germany, Sweden & Netherlands

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2009 (PDF 381kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN new gTLD update & FAQs
• ccTLD updates including .ar, .cm, . eu, .mx & .uk
• Whois,WhoWas &WIPO goes electronic

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2009 (PDF 355kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN delays new gTLD process & forms IP taskforce
• WIPO reports on global cybersquatting rise
• TEL goes live and CAC goes electronic
• ccTLD updates incl.new services from Nominet in UK, liberalisation in Mexico & Saudi Arabia

 

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2008 (PDF 252kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN:New gTLD update and GNSO Reform
• Domaining falls
• .TEL Sunrise launch
• ccTLD updates including co.nl and Nominet governance crisis

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2008 (PDF 336kb)

In this issue:
• Briefing on new gTLDs:what we know,what we think,winners & losers
• ICANN policies: an end to Add Grace,GNSO reform and RAA review
• Formality changes at 13 ccTLDs
• DRS updates from CAC,Nominet & Afnic

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2008 (PDF 327kb)

In this issue:
• .tel Sunrise planned
• .asia Sunrise & Landrush closed
• ICANN – New gTLDs, IDNS, the private sector and domain tasting
• The world of ccTLDs
• Global Domain Registration Information

 

Com Laude Newsletter Winter 2007 (PDF 121kb)

In this issue:
• .asia – 15,000 applications and counting
• ICANN – New Chair, Whois, IDNs & new gTLDs
• The world of ccTLDs
• Dispute News
• Global Domain Name Registration Information

Leave a comment

Com Laude Newsletter September 2012

The latest edition of the Com Laude newsletter is now available.

In this issue:

• Update on the new gTLDs: application trends, new timelines & what’s next
• ccTLD round-up from China to the UK by way of Kazakhstan, Oman and Italy plus more
• Domain count launch of .post, auction overview and comment on new ICANN CEO

Download the Com Laude Newsletter September 2012 (PDF 847kb)


Missed an issue of our Newsletter? Here are the back issues available to download:

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2012 (PDF 530kb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs – the beginning of the end
• WIPO reports on cybersquatting while speculators cry foul at UDRP provider
• ccTLD updates & the search for the new ICANN CEO

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2011 (PDF 283kb)

In this issue:
• A Guide to the new gTLDs and a Turn Key application
service
• .XXX stats, ccTLD updates,WIPO & NAF UDRP Overview

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2011 (PDF 549kb)

In this issue:
• New gTLDs six months away?
• .xxx launch plans
• ccTLD updates including IDNs, .no & .ru
• WIPO & NAF reports & UDRP review


Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2010
 (PDF 278kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN Board advances New gTLDs
• What will a new gTLD cost?
• A Clearinghouse launches
• ccTLD updates & new Arab UDRP provider

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2010 (PDF 773kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN:DAG4 analysed, trade mark protections, reasons to apply, issues if you do & the application process explained
• .xxx advances responsibly
• ccTLD updates & unwinding the UDRP

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2010 (PDF 426kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN: EOI cancelled; .xxx report; first Dot Brand applicant; whois accuracy
• 25 years of .com & domain name count
• ccTLD updates including .co RPM & whois restrictions in .es, .lu & .nl

 

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2009 (PDF 227kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN: new gTLDs delayed after Affirmation of Commitments but IDN ccTLDs fast tracked
• 20 facts about the new gTLD application process & Legal Rights Objections
• WIPO & CAC amend UDRP process
• ccTLD updates include Australia,Germany, Sweden & Netherlands

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2009 (PDF 381kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN new gTLD update & FAQs
• ccTLD updates including .ar, .cm, . eu, .mx & .uk
• Whois,WhoWas &WIPO goes electronic

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2009 (PDF 355kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN delays new gTLD process & forms IP taskforce
• WIPO reports on global cybersquatting rise
• TEL goes live and CAC goes electronic
• ccTLD updates incl.new services from Nominet in UK, liberalisation in Mexico & Saudi Arabia

 

Com Laude Newsletter Autumn 2008 (PDF 252kb)

In this issue:
• ICANN:New gTLD update and GNSO Reform
• Domaining falls
• .TEL Sunrise launch
• ccTLD updates including co.nl and Nominet governance crisis

 

Com Laude Newsletter Summer 2008 (PDF 336kb)

In this issue:
• Briefing on new gTLDs:what we know,what we think,winners & losers
• ICANN policies: an end to Add Grace,GNSO reform and RAA review
• Formality changes at 13 ccTLDs
• DRS updates from CAC,Nominet & Afnic

 

Com Laude Newsletter Spring 2008 (PDF 327kb)

In this issue:
• .tel Sunrise planned
• .asia Sunrise & Landrush closed
• ICANN – New gTLDs, IDNS, the private sector and domain tasting
• The world of ccTLDs
• Global Domain Registration Information

 

Com Laude Newsletter Winter 2007 (PDF 121kb)

In this issue:
• .asia – 15,000 applications and counting
• ICANN – New Chair, Whois, IDNs & new gTLDs
• The world of ccTLDs
• Dispute News
• Global Domain Name Registration Information

 

Leave a comment

Cybersquatting and Defensive Registration in relation to new gTLDs

Background

In a positive move for brand owners, ICANN has recognised that more policy work is required to address the issue of defensive second-level registrations in the new gTLDs.

 

Following a Public Comment period that ran in the first quarter of 2012, the New gTLD Program Committee, a newly-created group of non-conflicted ICANN board members has asked the ICANN staff to provide a briefing paper on the topic. It has also requested that the gTLD policy-making body, the GNSO Council, considers whether more protection might be needed at the second-level.

 

Here’s our overview of the measures that are currently planned, and suggested alternatives.

 

Mandated Rights Protection Mechanisms

All new gTLD registry operators must offer a Sunrise Period and an IP Claims Service (also known as a Trademark Claims Service) when they launch. ICANN has commissioned the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) to facilitate these mechanisms. It will act as a central repository of validated trademark rights data, charging trademark owners an estimated $150[1] per registered trademark for inclusion.

 

Sunrise Period

New gTLD Registry Operators (ROs) are obliged to provide a Sunrise Period, which is a priority registration period during which IP rights holders can register domains which exactly match their marks before General Availability opens. ICANN is requiring all ROs to run their Sunrise for a minimum of 30 days. During this phase, ROs must also provide notice to all trademark holders with a mark in the TMCH if someone has applied for a registration which exactly matches their mark.

 

It should be emphasised that payment for inclusion in the TMCH does not cover the cost of filing a registration in a registry. ROs can charge as much as they want for a Sunrise registration. All that the TMCH does is to remove the requirement for the mark to be validated by the individual registry during Sunrise.

 

Trademark Claims Service

Post-Sunrise, all ROs must provide an IP or Trademark Claims Service for at least the first 60 days of Landrush or General Availability. During this period, a registrant who attempts to register a domain name which is an exact match to a trademark recorded in the TMCH will be provided with an electronic warning notice and a requirement to confirm that to the best of his/her knowledge, s/he is not infringing the trademark. If after this notice the registrant proceeds to register the domain name, the IP rights holder is notified.

 

Other RPMs

The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) is a complaints procedure for IP Rights Holders who believe that their rights are being infringed by a domain name within a gTLD registry. It is intended to be inexpensive (it was originally expected to cost around $300 per proceeding). It was designed to be faster and less complex than the UDRP and  other DRS models, to tackle “Slam dunk” cases of infringement where the domain supports a website. The initial review is designed to take two business days and the determination by a neutral panellist is expected to take less than a month. The URS works by ‘locking’ (or ‘suspending’) a domain: there is no transfer to the complainant.

 

The Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Protection (PDDRP) is designed to enable rights owners to challenge “bad apple” registry operators who are complicit in consistent infringement of IP at the second level.

 

In addition, all ROs must implement the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the single proven effective measure for tackling abusive registration at the second level and operate Thick Whois (holding all data centrally).

 

Some improvements

There is a great deal of concern that the above mandated measures do not go far enough in protecting brand owner rights and therefore consumers’ best interests.  The only really effective solution is to register pre-emptively which is likely to be massively expensive.

 

If the ICANN Board is serious about limiting second level Defensive Registration, here is a short-list of solutions which have been put forward by actors in the IP/domain name community- :

 

Loser pays – Require the loser to pay in the case of all UDRP, URS, ADR or DRS actions. If the money can’t be collected from the loser, then the registrar that facilitated the registration should be charged. We believe this measure would signal the end of the systemic cybersquatting that members of the ICANN community have tolerated for the past decade.

 

Transfer domain names to a winning complainant in the URS – Allow the transfer of a domain name to a prevailing complainant following a URS complaint.

 

Block Lists – In the 24 months following the launch of the first registry, allow any mark owner which has filed 10 or more successful dispute resolution proceedings in the past decade to have a block put on the corresponding string at the second level in all registries. Applications for registration can only proceed if the rights owner agrees. Re-evaluate this policy after 24 months.

 

Globally Protected Marks List – Give enhanced protection for “supernova trademarks” which are at high risk in perpetuity. ‘High risk’ could be defined by the number of successful UDRP complaints and the extent of trademark protection, among other factors.

 

Expand the scope of IP/Trademark Claims Service – IP Claims should be sent to applicants for registrations for strings at the second level which are identical and confusingly similar to a trademark in the TMCH. The service should be permanent, rather than just lasting 60 days.

 

Improve sanctions against registries – Registries which support domain names at the second level which feature in more than 120 URS and UDRP cases per year should be required to develop stronger RPMs or ultimately face registry suspension/financial sanctions.

 

Whois accuracy – Require registries to undertake annual whois accuracy audits and to cull domains with records which are inaccurate. License Whois Privacy services and require operators to respond promptly to enquiries from rights owners which should be presented through a standardised mechanism.

 

 

 

Please contact info@valideus.com for further information.



[1] As of 16 August 2012

Leave a comment