NPO/Civil Society Issue in European Union Proposals for Internet Domain Name Policy

[Avri Doria]

Sounded that way to me too.

avri

On 27-Dec-14 10:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> A great initiative, good to see NPOC taking the lead on this, I know
> you have some expert TM people (e.g., Lori). I think NCSG as a whole
> should be able to get behind this.
>
>  
>
> --MM
>
>  
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf
> Of *Sam Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Friday, December 26, 2014 10:56 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] NPO/Civil Society Issue in European Union
> Proposals for Internet Domain Name Policy
>
>  
>
> NCSG Colleagues,
>  
>
> NPOC is completing its internal stakeholder consultation on the
> following issue. NPOC will submit a request to the European Union and
> asking them to remove some problematic wording in their proposed
> revision ofthe European Union Regulation on the Community Trade Mark
> and the European Union Directive Relating to Trade Marks. The issue
> context, background, analysis and proposed NPOC response are contained
> below:
>
> */Issue Context:/* There are Internet domain name policy discussions
> going on in the European Union (EU) that can have a serious negative
> impact on the ability of not-for-profit and civil society
> organizations to select appropriate website/domain names and email
> address strings.There is a window of opportunity to object to the
> draft proposals via public comment submissions to the final
> discussions. The chances for successful objection are good. Most of
> the intent of the wording can be achieved by existing legislation that
> does not pose problems for the not-for-profit and civil society
> community. This same issue is being discussion in the Internet
> Intellectual Property community since it also has negative
> consequences for commercial organizations. Feel free to share this
> information.
>
> */Background:/* The EU is engaged in an ongoing reformation of the
> European Union Regulation on the Community Trade Mark ("the
> Regulation") and the European Union Directive Relating to Trade Marks
> ("the Directive"). Both have potentially severe impacts on the
> internet and the domain name industry. In their present codification,
> the Regulation and the Directive describe the rights conferred by
> ownership of a Community Trade Mark (a.k.a. sign) and attempt to
> harmonize national and local trade mark regimes. The existing
> Regulation and Directive prohibit the following types of listed
> conduct by one who does not own the trade mark (sign):
>
>    . Affixing the sign to the goods or to the packaging thereof
>    . Offering the goods, putting them on the market or stocking them
>      for these purposes under that sign, or offering or supplying services thereunder;
>    . Importing or exporting the goods under that sign
>    . Using the sign on business papers and in advertising
>  
>
> The proposed revisions by the European Council explicitly insert
> prohibitions concerning domain names. The more important wording is
> below after the /[...]and in italics/.
>
>    /. /Using the sign as a trade or company name/[...], /or as a domain name, or as a part thereof./ [/emphasis added/]
>  
>
> The IP community opinion is that this language is unnecessary,
> superfluous, sloppy and poorly suited for the dynamic nature of the
> Internet, as well as adequately covered under existing rights
> conferred by a Community Trade Mark that already extend to Internet
> domain names. The fear is that among other problems the proposed
> amendment would likely:
>
>    1.Embolden spurious complaints against non-commercial uses, improperly elevating all domain names as being analogous to "a trade or company name";
>    2.Have a chilling effect on non-commercial expression by registrants in the European Union; and
>    3.Result in an aggregate negative impact on domain name registration and renewal rates among registrants, including NPO/Civil Society registrants, in the European Union.
>  
>
> There is time to weigh in and oppose this proposed amendment. Final
> negotiations recently began between the European Parliament (EP) and
> the European Council (EC), with the European Commission serving as a
> quasi-mediator. These "Trilogue" negotiations will likely continue
> until early 2015.
>
> */Analysis:/*[by Sam Lanfranco] While this amendment is talking about
> EU regulations I will use an Africa example where I am personally
> involved to underscore the nature of the problem. I am the Director of
> ICT for science, technology and development (ICT4STD) in the /Society
> for the Advancement of Science in Africa (/SASA/)/ The SASA acronym is
> widely used just in South Africa alone: South African Sugar
> Association; South African Statistical Association; South African
> Society of Anaesthesiologists; and the long established South African
> Society of Artists. It has wide use elsewhere. The SASA I work with is
> an NPO and owns the sasascience.org domain name.
>
> Currently SA SA Overseas Ltd, an Asian clothing company, owns the
> global rights to SASA. At the time of registering the trademark it
> even wrongly claimed that the word "sasa" had no meaning in foreign
> languages. In Swahili SASA has a meaning a bit like "now, or "alive".
> It also has a Samoan meaning. [/That highlights another problem with
> elevating words to "signs"in the domain name world./]
>
> The proposed EU legislation could pose problems for the
> sasascience.org domain name since it is using the trademarked SASA as
> a part of a domain name. Should it, for example, buy sasa.net -- which
> is for sale -- it could likewise be at risk under the proposed
> legislation. It is impossible to assess if that risk is high or low,
> but it would expose SASA the NPO to risks from internet trolls and
> other trademark owners. There is also a risk that this proposed
> wording could be understood as the EU unilaterally expanding the
> rights conferred by a Community Trade Mark.
>
> Whether or not this exposes NPO/Civil Society domain names to risk
> only within the boundaries of the EU, or opens up the option for EU
> serving as a litigation site that puts such domain names at risk
> everywhere is unclear. What appears clear is that the wording does
> pose risks for NPO/Civil Society organizations, and that the wording
> is unnecessary given the existing rights of a Community Trade Mark.
> -------------------
>
> Sam
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141227/2d0e5be6/attachment.htm>