Amazon’s Inability To Register Domain Name .Amazon Is An Interesting Case Study For New gTLDs

by Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact

Amazon’s Inability To Register Domain Name .Amazon Is An Interesting Case Study For New gTLDs

Amazon Parrot

Photo © 2014 Gregory Smith, licensed under Creative Commons. Logo added by Josh Jarvis.

Do you want your company to control .app or .restaurant? Applying to operate a generic top-level domain (gTLD) isn’t for the faint of heart.  Although several hundred companies ponied up the $185,000 application fee for over 1,900 total gTLD applications, that’s only the first stage in the process.  Once filed, ICANN reviews each application for financial, technical, and operational competence, ensuring that each applicant has the financial wherewithal, technical savvy, and a comprehensive plan to safely operate the gTLD registry for at least the length of the initial ten-year contract term.

If an application passes muster, there are other potential obstacles to contend with.  If multiple companies apply to register the same string (for instance, there were thirteen applications for .app), the string is entered into a contention set, at which point companies must either work out a compromise or bid in an auction for the right to operate the gTLD.

Third-parties also have the opportunity to object to gTLD applications on various bases — string similarity (if a gTLD is similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string), legal rights (if gTLD string is confusingly similar to trademark owned by the complainant), community (if “substantial opposition to the gTLD application exists from significant portion of the community that the gTLD string targets”), and public interest (if the gTLD contradicts “generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order”).

.Brand Battles

Even companies applying to register TLDs corresponding to their own trademarks (“.Brand” TLD applicants) have encountered obstacles.  Outdoor retailer Patagonia, which shares its name with the geographic region in South America, applied to register .patagonia. The application drew objections based primarily on an outcry in Argentina.  Del Monte International’s application to register .delmonte was refused after objections from Del Monte Corporation (which licenses the mark to Del Monte International) that the application was a breach of a longstanding DEL MONTE trademark license.  And two companies with a common history — Merck KGaA and Merck & Co., Inc. — each with legitimate trademark rights in different jurisdictions, tussled over .merck and .emerck, disputes that have boiled over into lawsuits.  A full list of various objections filed, along with their dispositions, is available at ICANN’s Objection Determinations site.

Can Amazon Own .Amazon?

Amazon is the latest brand owner to be reminded that, when it comes to trademark rights, ICANN isn’t the friendliest of venues.  Amazon applied for 76 gTLDs, including many generics, but also for the gTLD for its core brand, .amazon, as well as corresponding Japanese and Chinese character versions of the same string. As noted above, there are a variety of obstacles that can arise during the review of a gTLD application.  However, even outside of initial ICANN review, string similarity analysis, and formal objection procedures, gTLD applications can be defeated by ICANN itself, and by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

GAC Attack

The GAC (pronounced “gack”) is a strange beast.  It is comprised of national governments and international economies (such as the EU), and exists to advise ICANN on issues of public policy.  While the GAC is only one of various constituencies that form ICANN’s ostensibly bottom-up, multistakeholder organizational structure, in practice it possesses the power to single-handedly stop an gTLD application dead in its tracks.

Back in November 2012, the GAC issued an “early warning” at the behest of the governments of Brazil and Peru, and endorsed by other countries, notifying Amazon that granting exclusive rights to the .amazon domain would “prevent the use of this domain for purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome.”  GAC early warnings do not constitute formal requests to ICANN that an application be denied, and Amazon opted to maintain its application.

Independent Objection to .Amazon

In March 2013, ICANN’s Independent Objector (IO), whose job it is to monitor new TLD applications and act “solely in the best interests of global Internet users,” filed a Community Objection, expanding on the arguments that the GAC had put forth in its early warning.  In April 2013, the GAC advised the ICANN Board to delay the .amazon gTLD applications, and in July 2013, it formally advised the ICANN Board to terminate the applications.  Under ICANN rules, such formal advice from the GAC creates a “strong presumption” that the subject application should not be approved.  At this point, things were looking dim for .amazon.

However, in January 2014 the International Chamber of Commerce, the independent organization that arbitrates Community Objections, refused the IO’s Objections on the basis that the IO had a conflict of interest due to his professional ties with the governments involved, and also that the IO had not shown that there was “substantial opposition to the application” from the “Amazon” community, or that the delegation of the .amazon domain name “would lead to substantial detriment.” But Amazon’s victory dance didn’t last for long.  On May 14, 2014, ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee, which is essentially the final authority on who’s in and who’s out, voted to follow the GAC’s advice on .amazon, formally rejecting Amazon’s application to operate .amazon and its Japanese and Chinese string counterparts.

Amazon’s Options Going Forward

Amazon still has options, but they’re not great.  On May 29, 2014, Amazon filed a Reconsideration Request asking the ICANN Board to reverse its decision, but given the GAC presumption and the New gTLD Program Committee’s decision, this is almost certainly a longshot.  A more promising path may have been to seek relief via ICANN’s Independent Review Process, but the time to do so has passed and it is unclear whether Amazon availed itself of that option.  It could also evaluate a legal route via the courts, or try once again to work with the relevant governments to come to an amicable arrangement (where, for instance, it might agree to protect certain second-level names from abuse – such as tours.amazon or peru.amazon – or keep them available to registrations that further the public interest of the “Amazon” region).

At this point, it looks like Amazon may be facing a stacked deck. We’ll keep an eye on further developments.

 

- See more at: http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/06/amazonc-gtld/#sthash.pI5AwnKo.dpuf

Amazon’s Inability To Register Domain Name .Amazon Is An Interesting Case Study For New gTLDs

Amazon Parrot

Photo © 2014 Gregory Smith, licensed under Creative Commons. Logo added by Josh Jarvis.

Do you want your company to control .app or .restaurant? Applying to operate a generic top-level domain (gTLD) isn’t for the faint of heart.  Although several hundred companies ponied up the $185,000 application fee for over 1,900 total gTLD applications, that’s only the first stage in the process.  Once filed, ICANN reviews each application for financial, technical, and operational competence, ensuring that each applicant has the financial wherewithal, technical savvy, and a comprehensive plan to safely operate the gTLD registry for at least the length of the initial ten-year contract term.

If an application passes muster, there are other potential obstacles to contend with.  If multiple companies apply to register the same string (for instance, there were thirteen applications for .app), the string is entered into a contention set, at which point companies must either work out a compromise or bid in an auction for the right to operate the gTLD.

Third-parties also have the opportunity to object to gTLD applications on various bases — string similarity (if a gTLD is similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string), legal rights (if gTLD string is confusingly similar to trademark owned by the complainant), community (if “substantial opposition to the gTLD application exists from significant portion of the community that the gTLD string targets”), and public interest (if the gTLD contradicts “generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order”).

.Brand Battles

Even companies applying to register TLDs corresponding to their own trademarks (“.Brand” TLD applicants) have encountered obstacles.  Outdoor retailer Patagonia, which shares its name with the geographic region in South America, applied to register .patagonia. The application drew objections based primarily on an outcry in Argentina.  Del Monte International’s application to register .delmonte was refused after objections from Del Monte Corporation (which licenses the mark to Del Monte International) that the application was a breach of a longstanding DEL MONTE trademark license.  And two companies with a common history — Merck KGaA and Merck & Co., Inc. — each with legitimate trademark rights in different jurisdictions, tussled over .merck and .emerck, disputes that have boiled over into lawsuits.  A full list of various objections filed, along with their dispositions, is available at ICANN’s Objection Determinations site.

Can Amazon Own .Amazon?

Amazon is the latest brand owner to be reminded that, when it comes to trademark rights, ICANN isn’t the friendliest of venues.  Amazon applied for 76 gTLDs, including many generics, but also for the gTLD for its core brand, .amazon, as well as corresponding Japanese and Chinese character versions of the same string. As noted above, there are a variety of obstacles that can arise during the review of a gTLD application.  However, even outside of initial ICANN review, string similarity analysis, and formal objection procedures, gTLD applications can be defeated by ICANN itself, and by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

GAC Attack

The GAC (pronounced “gack”) is a strange beast.  It is comprised of national governments and international economies (such as the EU), and exists to advise ICANN on issues of public policy.  While the GAC is only one of various constituencies that form ICANN’s ostensibly bottom-up, multistakeholder organizational structure, in practice it possesses the power to single-handedly stop an gTLD application dead in its tracks.

Back in November 2012, the GAC issued an “early warning” at the behest of the governments of Brazil and Peru, and endorsed by other countries, notifying Amazon that granting exclusive rights to the .amazon domain would “prevent the use of this domain for purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome.”  GAC early warnings do not constitute formal requests to ICANN that an application be denied, and Amazon opted to maintain its application.

Independent Objection to .Amazon

In March 2013, ICANN’s Independent Objector (IO), whose job it is to monitor new TLD applications and act “solely in the best interests of global Internet users,” filed a Community Objection, expanding on the arguments that the GAC had put forth in its early warning.  In April 2013, the GAC advised the ICANN Board to delay the .amazon gTLD applications, and in July 2013, it formally advised the ICANN Board to terminate the applications.  Under ICANN rules, such formal advice from the GAC creates a “strong presumption” that the subject application should not be approved.  At this point, things were looking dim for .amazon.

However, in January 2014 the International Chamber of Commerce, the independent organization that arbitrates Community Objections, refused the IO’s Objections on the basis that the IO had a conflict of interest due to his professional ties with the governments involved, and also that the IO had not shown that there was “substantial opposition to the application” from the “Amazon” community, or that the delegation of the .amazon domain name “would lead to substantial detriment.” But Amazon’s victory dance didn’t last for long.  On May 14, 2014, ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee, which is essentially the final authority on who’s in and who’s out, voted to follow the GAC’s advice on .amazon, formally rejecting Amazon’s application to operate .amazon and its Japanese and Chinese string counterparts.

Amazon’s Options Going Forward

Amazon still has options, but they’re not great.  On May 29, 2014, Amazon filed a Reconsideration Request asking the ICANN Board to reverse its decision, but given the GAC presumption and the New gTLD Program Committee’s decision, this is almost certainly a longshot.  A more promising path may have been to seek relief via ICANN’s Independent Review Process, but the time to do so has passed and it is unclear whether Amazon availed itself of that option.  It could also evaluate a legal route via the courts, or try once again to work with the relevant governments to come to an amicable arrangement (where, for instance, it might agree to protect certain second-level names from abuse – such as tours.amazon or peru.amazon – or keep them available to registrations that further the public interest of the “Amazon” region).

At this point, it looks like Amazon may be facing a stacked deck. We’ll keep an eye on further developments.

 

- See more at: http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2014/06/amazonc-gtld/#sthash.pI5AwnKo.dpuf

Amazon ParrotPhoto © 2014 Gregory Smith, licensed under Creative Commons. Logo added by Josh Jarvis.

Do you want your company to control .app or .restaurant? Applying to operate a generic top-level domain (gTLD) isn’t for the faint of heart.  Although several hundred companies ponied up the $185,000 application fee for over 1,900 total gTLD applications, that’s only the first stage in the process.  Once filed, ICANN reviews each application for financial, technical, and operational competence, ensuring that each applicant has the financial wherewithal, technical savvy, and a comprehensive plan to safely operate the gTLD registry for at least the length of the initial ten-year contract term.

If an application passes muster, there are other potential obstacles to contend with.  If multiple companies apply to register the same string (for instance, there were thirteen applications for .app), the string is entered into a contention set, at which point companies must either work out a compromise or bid in an auction for the right to operate the gTLD.

Third-parties also have the opportunity to object to gTLD applications on various bases — string similarity (if a gTLD is similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string), legal rights (if gTLD string is confusingly similar to trademark owned by the complainant), community (if “substantial opposition to the gTLD application exists from significant portion of the community that the gTLD string targets”), and public interest (if the gTLD contradicts “generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order”).

.Brand Battles

Even companies applying to register TLDs corresponding to their own trademarks (“.Brand” TLD applicants) have encountered obstacles.  Outdoor retailer Patagonia, which shares its name with the geographic region in South America, applied to register .patagonia. The application drew objections based primarily on an outcry in Argentina.  Del Monte International’s application to register .delmonte was refused after objections from Del Monte Corporation (which licenses the mark to Del Monte International) that the application was a breach of a longstanding DEL MONTE trademark license.  And two companies with a common history — Merck KGaA and Merck & Co., Inc. — each with legitimate trademark rights in different jurisdictions, tussled over .merck and .emerck, disputes that have boiled over into lawsuits.  A full list of various objections filed, along with their dispositions, is available at ICANN’s Objection Determinations site.

Can Amazon Own .Amazon?

Amazon is the latest brand owner to be reminded that, when it comes to trademark rights, ICANN isn’t the friendliest of venues.  Amazon applied for 76 gTLDs, including many generics, but also for the gTLD for its core brand, .amazon, as well as corresponding Japanese and Chinese character versions of the same string. As noted above, there are a variety of obstacles that can arise during the review of a gTLD application.  However, even outside of initial ICANN review, string similarity analysis, and formal objection procedures, gTLD applications can be defeated by ICANN itself, and by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

GAC Attack

The GAC (pronounced “gack”) is a strange beast.  It is comprised of national governments and international economies (such as the EU), and exists to advise ICANN on issues of public policy.  While the GAC is only one of various constituencies that form ICANN’s ostensibly bottom-up, multistakeholder organizational structure, in practice it possesses the power to single-handedly stop an gTLD application dead in its tracks.

Back in November 2012, the GAC issued an “early warning” at the behest of the governments of Brazil and Peru, and endorsed by other countries, notifying Amazon that granting exclusive rights to the .amazon domain would “prevent the use of this domain for purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome.”  GAC early warnings do not constitute formal requests to ICANN that an application be denied, and Amazon opted to maintain its application.

Independent Objection to .Amazon

In March 2013, ICANN’s Independent Objector (IO), whose job it is to monitor new TLD applications and act “solely in the best interests of global Internet users,” filed a Community Objection, expanding on the arguments that the GAC had put forth in its early warning.  In April 2013, the GAC advised the ICANN Board to delay the .amazon gTLD applications, and in July 2013, it formally advised the ICANN Board to terminate the applications.  Under ICANN rules, such formal advice from the GAC creates a “strong presumption” that the subject application should not be approved.  At this point, things were looking dim for .amazon.

However, in January 2014 the International Chamber of Commerce, the independent organization that arbitrates Community Objections, refused the IO’s Objections on the basis that the IO had a conflict of interest due to his professional ties with the governments involved, and also that the IO had not shown that there was “substantial opposition to the application” from the “Amazon” community, or that the delegation of the .amazon domain name “would lead to substantial detriment.” But Amazon’s victory dance didn’t last for long.  On May 14, 2014, ICANN’s New gTLD Program Committee, which is essentially the final authority on who’s in and who’s out, voted to follow the GAC’s advice on .amazon, formally rejecting Amazon’s application to operate .amazon and its Japanese and Chinese string counterparts.

Amazon’s Options Going Forward

Amazon still has options, but they’re not great.  On May 29, 2014, Amazon filed a Reconsideration Request asking the ICANN Board to reverse its decision, but given the GAC presumption and the New gTLD Program Committee’s decision, this is almost certainly a longshot.  A more promising path may have been to seek relief via ICANN’s Independent Review Process, but the time to do so has passed and it is unclear whether Amazon availed itself of that option.  It could also evaluate a legal route via the courts, or try once again to work with the relevant governments to come to an amicable arrangement (where, for instance, it might agree to protect certain second-level names from abuse – such as tours.amazon or peru.amazon – or keep them available to registrations that further the public interest of the “Amazon” region).

At this point, it looks like Amazon may be facing a stacked deck. We’ll keep an eye on further developments.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.