An example of how a law firm is cashing in on new top level domains.
As I’ve said before, I understand why trademark holders are apprehensive about the introduction of new top level domain names. It’s indisputable that the release of hundreds of new top level domain names will be costly and time consuming from a brand protection perspective. But, as I noted, they are also overstating the problem.
To peer into the fear mongering undertaken by legal experts, look no further than Bracewell & Giuliani’s latest article. It starts out by suggesting the introduction of new gTLDs is imminent:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is on track to open cybersquatting floodgates with its release of hundreds of new generic Top-Level Domain Names (“gTLDs”) by the first quarter of 2010.
This is both factually incorrect and misleading. First of all, ICANN has already changed the date from Q1 2010 to H1 2010. Second, that’s just for applications…not the actual use of the new TLDs on the web. I predict that will be mid 2011 at the earliest.
The law firm then urges companies to file trademarks now to protect brands when new top level domains are introduced:
Because both the proposed Trademark Clearinghouse and the proposed URS largely rely on registered trademarks, all trademark holders should immediately seek registration for any valuable unregistered trademarks both domestically with the U.S. Trademark Office and internationally.
This sort of behaviour — rushing to file for trademarks that otherwise would not be filed for — is one reason rules specific to new TLDs and trademarks should rely on trademarks filed before new rights protection measures were proposed.
ActNow says
Lawyers stay in business by charging hours to clients by thinking up all of the “what ifs” they can create.
Naturally, they are going to scare/advise their clients to protect themselves from thieves (cybersquatters) by registering new TMs and registering defensive domains.
Just like-
1. insurance, security alarm and gun companies push the benefit of protecting your family,
2. tire companies who scare customers about the hazard of slightly worn tires,
3. organic food companies who talk about all of the chemicals we shouldn’t be consuming.
4. etc, etc.
I’m not happy about it but I’m not surprised.
M. Menius says
I find that last quote more abusive and misleading than the first. The first quote, based on ICANN’s non-responsiveness and historical failings, was largely accurate until just recently.
No question that the risk global companies will experience -> potentially gives IP law firms much more business, and ICANN unprecedented mounds of cash.
domain guy says
act now is correct there is no abuse here intellectual property lawyers which i have contacted many are here to create hours at 300 an hour for trademark work period. this is why i took the time to learn trademark law and punish these greedy lawyers.we are not here to give free advice or consultation.
this way these ip lawyers now charge thousands of dollars and have to go back to their client and tell them the ip lawyer has done a half assed job period.and now these ip lawyers cannot justify their fee at 300 an hour and it gets real ugly when you rip an ip lawyers trademark off the principal register and the ip lawyer cannot file a response because of their actions.talk about one pissed off clinet who spent 10k and now has nothing in his hand except a 10k ip bill and a notice of default…