Background

The World Intellectual Property Organization () is a specialized UN agency focused on intellectual property. It operates an alternative dispute resolution () process for a variety of intellectual property disputes that may arise internationally, including disputes related to patents, copyrights, and trade-marks. WIPO also handles disputes related to the for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (). ICANN is an American non-profit that manages IP addressing and domain name registration for the internet, essentially organizing every device and website that can be connected to over the internet. In 2011, ICANN decided to open up registration of new gTLDs. (More coverage by the IPilogue on this topic can be found , , , and .)

The Decisions So Far

For a successful LRO, the objector must prove on a balance of probabilities that the applied-for gTLD infringes an established legal right. (See the��, Module 3.5.2.) In doing so, there are two steps that need to be completed - first the objector must establish a legal right, and second the objector must demonstrate the proposed gTLD will infringe that right. Given the nature of domain names, trade-marks have been the only established rights currently used to challenge a proposed gTLD. The objections so far have been rejected for��either��failing to establish an existing right, or failing to demonstrate infringement of an established right.

Failing to Establish a Legal Right

These decisions involve a number of firms that seem to have applied for trade-mark registration for the purpose of objecting to gTLD applications, as in the case of�� - an entity that objected to an application by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google to register ".home". ,

“The attempted acquisition of trademark rights appears to have been undertaken to create a basis for filing the objection, or defending an application. There appears to have been no attempt to acquire rights in or use any marks until after the New gTLD Program had been announced.”

The US Postal Service (USPS) had a�����ɳ��� of .mail, as the USPS owns a trade-mark for "U.S. Mail", but not the word "mail". Some����these early decisions ruling there was no established right as bringing clarity and predictability to the process, while strongly rejecting any��perceived��abuses of the objection system.

Failing to Establish Infringement

The more controversial rejected objections have been those where the objector had a clearly established trade-mark, but failed to show the proposed gTLD would infringe their right. A legal analyst at Bloomberg���� and����as setting two precedents that will make it difficult to launch a successful trade-mark based LRO. the panelist in��Right at Home��sets an exceedingly high burden for demonstrating infringement that would justify an objection. It is also argued that��Express LLC reinforces that the registration of a mark for a common English word is��insufficient��to block a proposed gTLD. It is possible that these decisions and their subsequent endorsement make it almost impossible for an objector with a valid established right to successfully challenge a proposed gTLD.

Going Forward

If these legal commentators are correct, it will be all but impossible for mark holders to successfully challenge gTLD registrations. As a result, any further objections will have to be filed through the pre-existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy on a domain-by-domain basis, where panelists will decide if a specific URL infringes a trade-mark. Given the good track record of success by many rights holders using this process, the same commentators����this will be the true mechanism for objectors to protect their intellectual property. Even with the complete shut-out of objectors, it is still too early to completely dismiss a successful LRO, and perhaps one of the outstanding 50 will set a precedent for what a��successful��LRO looks like.

Alex Buonassisi is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Thompson Rivers University.

The post .shut-out for Legal Rights Objections in New gTLD Registrations appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On September 22, 2011, the European Court of Justice handed down on a series of trade mark related questions spurred by the long running dispute between international flower delivery network Interflora and English retailer Marks and Spencer. The case stemmed from a complaint raised by Interflora that Marks and Spencer used Google’s “AdWords” service to create internet advertisements targeting keywords such as ‘Interflora’, ‘Interflora Flowers’, and ‘Interflora.com’.

This use of Interflora related keywords by Marks and Spencer meant that when users visited sites where the name Interflora appeared, ads for Marks and Spencer’s own flower delivery services would be displayed. Interflora Inc. owns a trade mark on the word ‘Interflora’, and as a result, brought an action against Marks and Spencer alleging that their use of words identical to Interflora’s trade mark is unlawful.

The High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, which heard Interflora’s case for trade mark infringement referred questions to the Court of Justice on a series of issues related to the use of keywords identical to a trade mark, without the consent of the trade mark proprietor, by a competitor within an internet referencing service. It is important to note that the European Court of Justice’s decision does not decide the case between Interflora and Marks and Spencer, it simply clarifies the law for the High Courts of each of Europe’s member states.

As outlined in a by the court, because the use of a keyword can only be prevented by a trade mark owner if it is liable to have an adverse effect on one of the functions of that mark, each of the functions of a trade mark were examined and outlined in the course of considering the case. These functions included the origin-indicating function, the advertising function, and for the first time, the investment function of a trade mark.

In dealing with the origin-indicating function of a trade mark, the court followed its decision in Google France (). The Google France case was previously covered by the IPilogue here. In Google France, the court observed that the test to determine whether a trade mark has been infringed should consist of an evaluation of whether a reasonably well informed and observant internet user is able, based on general market knowledge, to determine whether the goods or services referred to by an advertisement originate from the proprietor of the trade mark. Applied to the Interflora v Marks and Spencer case, this element of the trade mark evaluation becomes a question of fact for the lower courts related to whether Marks and Spencer’s advertisement enabled an internet user to recognize whether or not Marks and Spencer is a member of the Interflora network.

Considering the advertising function of a trade mark, the court ruled that a rise in the cost-per-click of advertising online due to a competitor’s use of a trade mark keyword was not sufficient in every case to conclude that the advertising function of a company’s trade mark had been adversely affected. The court also commented that there is nothing wrong with a company using an internet advertising service to create competition by offering alternatives to a particular product of service; however, the trade mark owner must not be prevented from using their mark to attract customers.

The European Court of Justice recognized the investment function of a trade mark for the first time in this judgement. The court ruled that the investment function of a trade mark is adversely affected when use of the mark by a competitor substantially interferes with the owner’s ability to create or preserve a reputation capable of attracting customers and retaining loyalty with the trade mark. This consideration of the investment function of a trade mark was followed by a clarification of the scope of “dilution” (detracting from the distinctive character of a trade mark) and “free-riding” (taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character of a trade mark). The court ruled that choosing to duplicate a trade mark without due cause when selecting keywords for internet advertising may be construed as “free-riding”; however, the court made clear that this was intended to deal with cases where internet advertisers were selling replica and imitation goods by using the trade mark as a keyword to attract potential customers.

Ultimately, the European Court of Justice ruled that the decision in this case would come down to a finding of fact by lower courts as to whether or not Marks and Spencer adversely affected one of Interflora’s trade mark’s functions. However, as re-iterated in the court’s , “Where [an] advertisement displayed on the internet on the basis of a keyword corresponding to a trade mark with a reputation puts forward an alternative to the goods or services of the proprietor of the trade mark with a reputation – without offering a mere imitation of the goods or services of the proprietor of that trade mark, without causing dilution of the trade mark or detriment to its repute, and without adversely affecting the functions of the trade mark – such use falls, as a rule, within the ambit of fair competition in the sector for the goods or services concerned.”

It will be interesting to see how the High Court in the UK decides the case of Interflora v Marks and Spencer based on this ruling.

The post Flower Powers – ECJ Rules On Interflora v Marks And Spencer appeared first on IPOsgoode.