Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse Launching Today

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-domain-for-you dept.

The Internet 49

itwbennett writes "If you want to protect your brand before ICANN rolls out the new gTLDs (generic top-level domains), here's your chance. The clearinghouse will allow trademark owners to register their marks for an annual fee of between $95 and $150. The clearinghouse 'doesn't necessarily prevent trademark infringement or cybersquatting, but it does help trademark owners and brand owners somewhat in mitigating the damage that might occur,' said Keith Kupferschmid, general counsel and vice president of IP policy and enforcement for the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA). 'We've been telling brand owners it's not that expensive to protect themselves and they ought to do it.'" All of the new TLD registrars will be required to check the trademark clearinghouse before issuing domains, preemptively squashing trademark disputes.

cancel ×

49 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (4, Funny)

zedrdave (1978512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279359)

For an extra $100, ICANN will send you your TLD VIP package that includes instructions on how to get on the faster VIP internets and make your domain load up spontaneously on people's browser when they utter your brand's name.

Re: A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279443)

Actually, they have to say it three times (just like Beetlejuice).

Re: A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279673)

Actually, they have to say it three times (just like Beetlejuice).

I said "Microsoft" three times and was hit by a flying chair [businessinsider.com] .

Re: A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279881)

"nice brand you have here... it would be a shame if anything... happened to it."

Re:A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279563)

To be fair, how could anything based on their own gTLD scam NOT be a scam?
Seriously; who really needs the new gTLD's? Was it supposed to expand the number of available domain names? If so, why would this clearinghouse exist at all?

Re:A not-so-subtle scam, you say? WHY!? I NEVER! (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43281471)

ICANN originated in the U.S. so they're following the basics of Trademark Law that requires you to protect your trademark or loose it and it's the reason we see trademark lawsuits to begin with.

You are correct that this is just another damn scam involving trademarks since to be protected by Trademark Law, they must be Registered and we already have a clearinghouse of those registered trademarks.

Money (5, Insightful)

PGC (880972) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279363)

Give us your moneys to put your name on a list. Not that we will actually do something with it, but it will give you a nice and fuzzy feeling.

Re:Money (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#43280471)

See I read the quote from the guy as "Giving Guido $100 might keep your business safe. Bad things can happen in this neighborhood. $100 isn't that much money."

ICANN, really... (0, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279365)

...nobody gives a fuck

your little DNS oligarchy will be over when the US dollar collapses anyway

Re:ICANN, really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279785)

lolwut

Re:ICANN, really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280031)

That got out of hand quickly.

"rolls out" or "doles out", but NOT "roles out" (4, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279393)

re : before ICANN roles out the new gTLDs (generic top-level domains), [emphasis mine]
.
You could say:
before ICANN rolls out the new gTLDs

or, you could say:

before ICANN doles out the new gTLDs

but srsly, you cannot say:

before ICANN roles out the new gTLDs

"Rolls out" and "doles out" have different implications, but they would at least make some sense. Hello, /., we need an editor on aisle 5, please send an editor to aisle 5 now, we've got a grammar spill. Bring the sawdust... ;>)

Re:"rolls out" or "doles out", but NOT "roles out" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280795)

re : before ICANN roles out the new gTLDs (generic top-level domains), [emphasis mine] . You could say:

before ICANN rolls out the new gTLDs

or, you could say:

before ICANN doles out the new gTLDs

but srsly, you cannot say:

before ICANN roles out the new gTLDs

"Rolls out" and "doles out" have different implications, but they would at least make some sense. Hello, /., we need an editor on aisle 5, please send an editor to aisle 5 now, we've got a grammar spill. Bring the sawdust... ;>)

Maybe they're roleplaying at rolling out the new domains.

That's a nice looking trademark you have there... (2)

kinarduk (734762) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279395)

You wouldn't want it to be infringed upon would you?

Who gets .apple? (5, Interesting)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279409)

Who gets .mcdonalds? Who gets .burgerking ("The burgers are better at Hungry Jack's")

And I could repeat trademarks that apply in different geographical areas, and in different business areas. I sell computer services under the name Coca Cola, does that mean I can prevent a global beverage company from squatting on .cocacola?

In other words, as previously mentioned, this whole this is a scam.

Re: Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279457)

This scam is a little different than that. With this $95 - $150 fee per trademark, per year [trademark-...ghouse.com] they'll notify you when someone is going to buy a domain that uses your trademark on one of these new vanity gTLDs and you'll have the chance to contest the purchase (ie, buy it yourself) or give up all future claims.

Re: Who gets .apple? (5, Insightful)

parkinglot777 (2563877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279653)

they'll notify you when someone is going to buy a domain that uses your trademark on one of these new vanity gTLDs and you'll have the chance to contest the purchase (ie, buy it yourself) or give up all future claims.

Yes, but you (owner of the trademark) still have to do the work. What they (ICANN) do is to watch if anyone else is going to buy similar domain to your trademark which is somewhat an extension to what they are doing. The trademark owner really has to do the work to stop/deter the purchase (owner of the intellectual property must enforce his/her own IP).

Also even though someone else has bought a domain name with your trademark and used it to make money, you could still sue for damages (if there is any) without needing to know it in advance. One problem I am seeing is that how would one determine whether the domain name bought by someone else is violating your trademark. From the USPTO ( http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp [uspto.gov] ), you may challenge those who use your trademark in the country where your trademark has been registered. If someone registered the domain name in a country where your trademark has not been registered but sells products (online) in the country your trade mark is registered, what can you do? I am not so sure you can really stop the domain name purchase this way...

In other words, they just want free money every year with their little afford to do the work for you. Is it really worth it?

Re: Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280679)

I already get notified by some nice service in China, they are always sending me email saying someone is trying to register a name with my trademark in the.cn domain. All I have do do is send a few hundred dollars to them each time and they will register the name for me.

Re: Who gets .apple? (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279665)

Sounds like a scam to me. The whole point of trademarks is to prevent others from using the mark in the course of their normal business activities without explicit authorization from the owner. By making trademarks available as gTLDs, ICANN is directly infringing on the trademark owner's rights, doubly so if they are doing so knowing that the word happens to be a trademark. So any trademark owner could sue ICANN for using their trademarks without permission.

IANAL and all that, but I don't see how ICANN can even legally offer gTLDs that happen to be trademarks. (*)(**)

(*) I would actually expect ICANN to pay someone to filter out all words that *are* trademarks, just to make sure that none of them could possibly be sold as gTLDs. I guess I'm not a CEO.

(**) Perhaps the insurance scam is designed to contractually establish ICANN's right to use the trademark for their own business purposes, selling it back to the legitimate owner? Sneaky!

Re: Who gets .apple? (2)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279753)

By making trademarks available as gTLDs, ICANN is directly infringing on the trademark owner's rights

No. That logic would mean that a signwriter, say, who was asked to make a sign that infringed a trademark would be liable. ICANN can't be responsible for checking that every domain that someone orders is under some trademark or another.

But ICANN are bloodsucking jerks who are fucking up the whole domain name system by thinking of more and more ways to make people think they need more and more domains, when any .com would do and free subdomains if you needed them. With random TLDs they're creating a system that makes it easier for scammers to create deceptive and infringing names. But that's capitalism.

Re: Who gets .apple? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43281559)

Trademarks have to be Registered to be a trademark, thus they're on a database that is searchable before you even apply for a trademark. Thus ICANN could be in a very shaky legal position in the United States for even offering this - Keep in mind that ICANN is based in the United States even though they're supposedly no longer under the control of the U.S. Government.

Re: Who gets .apple? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#43282183)

Trademarks have to be Registered to be a trademark, thus they're on a database that is searchable before you even apply for a trademark. Thus ICANN could be in a very shaky legal position in the United States for even offering this

Are they supposed to investigate every entity that wants to create a domain name and see if there is an infringement? That could not be automated. If you make the registrar responsible for any infringements then they will have to charge thousands of dollars for each domain to pay for the due diligence, or get sued bankrupt.

Its the entity that orders and uses the domain that is responsible. Anyway, trademarks are not locks on words under all circumstances. Google any fairly common surname, You'll find dozens of trademarks using it, in different locations and trades. All can be quite valid.

People are thinking about the big names, it's the millions of small companies with trademarks that make this absurd.

Re:Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279541)

I sell computer services under the name Coca Cola

I strongly suspect that you don't.

Re:Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279613)

You might want to take a look at this: www.nissan.com

Re:Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279951)

Ain't gonna open that link, but... So, you're selling computer services under the name "Coca Cola" with website on nissan.com?..

Makes perfect sense! Hope your grocery chain, TransAero, does fine too.

Re:Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280199)

I'm the only person with the name Suzuki!

No, I am!

I sell computers, and therefore have the rights to sell computers under my name, Suzuki!

No you don't, because I sell scooters under my name, Suzuki.

Fuck you both, I'm a Canadian and I sell environmental services and shit. And my name is Suzuki.

Re:Who gets .apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280665)

Suppose .mcdonalds has been claimed by the Clan McDonald of Scotland, United Kingdom (locally known as "The McDonald's") as their Clan website. They have legitimate interest in the name and did not register the TLD in bad faith. No "TradeMark register" is going to take that top level domain away from them.

Non-commercial Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279411)

I'd like to see a non-commercial internet on which any commercial activity is strictly prohibited. Wouldn't it be possible to build this on top of TCP/IP on the basis of some very strict EULA and other legal provisions?

Re:Non-commercial Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279439)

No. At least, not the way you want to do it. The way to get a non-commercial Internet is to abolish commerce.
Communism (of the real variety, no states, countries etc., independent, decentralized, confederated communes and neighborhoods) is probably the most sure method. (Note: Anarcho-communism.)

But messing around with EULAs or whatever? That's just crazy.

Moreover, I'm not sure that commerce and commercial activity per se is the problem. The problem is far reaching corporations, too powerful governments and similar. The solution is anarchy. Within a true anarchy you'll have communism, mutualism, and various experiments going on. Sure, eventually, they'll converge on true communism (because in a post-scarcity world it's be the best method of resource distribution), but in the mean time, what's wrong with a little barter?

Re:Non-commercial Internet? (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279475)

You can register a name such as "free" as your top level gTLD and start doing just that, offering *yourservice*.free domains, you can act as the registrar and the policy maker overseeing your brand new domain pool. However the establishment of such a new top level gTLD requires the operation of a domain registry and demonstration of technical and financial capacity, it will be difficult for small players to easily register and manage gTLDs, but VCs alike can still create a useful utility in the domain system.

scam (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279469)

Seriously? This is so close to various scams that you need a microscope to spot the difference.

Not to mention that it borders on a protection racket. "Nice trademark you have there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it..."

ICANN needs to be replaced.

Re:scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279747)

Not only replaced. The people in charge need to go to jail.

Re:scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43280057)

Completely true. But for anyone who actually cares about this 'service' the fee is a rounding error. I'm even surprised they don't charge more protection money.

can we get a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279485)

.fukiccan

AS RICO SAYS: WHAT A RACKET !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279509)

Sit back and let them pay you for being a little less afraid !! Uhahahahahah !!

Nice work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279527)

$185k per gTLD simply for "evaluation" and $150pa per trademark simply for "protection".

  • 1. Create scarcity
  • 2. Create fear
  • 3. Abolish scarcity for the very rich
  • 4. Create more fear
  • 5. Non-profit!!!

Send your money to ICANN, get nothing in return (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279627)

In other words, ICANN is still just looking for more of your money. That is all they have cared about for many years now. They haven't cared for some time what impact their decisions have on people who use the internet, provided it brings more money to them.

Extortion (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279633)

I pay the USPTO for trademark registration, and that covers everything.

Re:Extortion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279787)

You are not paying ICANN to protect your Domain. You are paying, $95 - $150, for them to tell you if someone is going to buy a gTLD with your Trademark in it. They will still let someone buy a gTLD with your trademark in it, they just tell you about it.
You still need to enforce your trademark your self.

Re:Extortion (2)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43280053)

I think I would rather my lawyers tell ICANN to not let someone buy a gTLD with my trademark in it.

Re:Extortion (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#43280209)

I think I would rather my lawyers tell ICANN to not let someone buy a gTLD with my trademark in it.

Particularly because this system seems to be that you have a right of first refusal to buy a gTLD with your mark when someone else tries to buy one... and if you refuse to pay whatever ICANN asks, not only does the other guy get the gTLD, you waive all rights against them. In other words, this seems to waive your rights to a UDRP dispute and seizure of the domain.

What's it for? (2)

carou (88501) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279683)

The only use I can see for new TLD is to distinguish between different possible uses of the same name. e.g. consider how many web sites now have $(thing)-movie.com or $(thing)-band.com : if .movie and .band were TLDs, that's actually providing some benefit. But these are generic words, not trademarks. They're only useful if a registrar sells subdomains at a reasonable price, and the TLD will live or die depending on whether it can get a foothold in the market. This is a good thing.

I just don't see a case for corporations buying their own TLD. Is there a substantial usability or branding difference between www.disney and disney.com? Everybody will just type "disney" into the address bar anyway, it will find the right site even if it has to go via google...

Re:What's it for? (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43284913)

I just don't see a case for corporations buying their own TLD. Is there a substantial usability or branding difference between www.disney and disney.com? Everybody will just type "disney" into the address bar anyway, it will find the right site even if it has to go via google...

Sure it will, after multiple DNS queries, then a query to Google, then a user click. If the TLD resolves directly to the company's web site, users will get there faster. Sites that load pretty slowly anyway won't benefit much, but those that care about page load times can see significant benefits.

There are other reasons, I'm sure, but there's one, anyway. I'm guessing Google's registration of the "google" TLD is to accomplish exactly that (note: I work for Google but don't know anything about why Google has asked for the TLDs it has, or what it plans to do with them).

Double the registry, double the fun (1)

the_arrow (171557) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279705)

So owners or registered trademarks have to register them again? To a company that says "It won't protect the marks from being used, just help when you sue". Isn't that why you registered the trademark with the government to begin with?

Re:Double the registry, double the fun (1)

the_arrow (171557) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279709)

owners or registered

"Owners of registered" I mean.

Cheap (2)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about a year and a half ago | (#43279769)

All those complaining about the cost of pre-emptive action that could prevent an infringement suit are welcome to compare it to the first billable hour of lawyers engaged in emptive action.

Great, someone will lay out a few G's for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43279961)

sex
phones
apps
cars
shop
sports
computers
mobile
network
talk
voice
america

ICANN needs to die. (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43281503)

In other words ICANN is creating a whole host of phishing/identity problems with a money making TLD scheme which help nobody except phishers and their bottom line...

(...drumroll...)

Now they seriously have the nerve to seek mitigation against blatently predictable abuse of TLD insanity of their own making by soliciting even more money in extortion payments to safeguard their trademarks. WTF

I wish operators in the root zone list would grow a fucking spine and revolt against these loosers. ICANN needs to be gutted/shut down and replaced with a governance structure not prone to corruption and endless seas of conflicts of interest.

fucking horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43283871)

This is no free and open internet - this is a bunch of money grubbing fagots.

I'll happily use my existing trademark to protect any name that is mine - and NOT pay ICANN and STILL have them enforce my USPTO trademark.

fuck ICANN and their greedy jew ways.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>