Home / Blogs

Trademarking .generics - the .bank Fiasco!

Konstantinos Komaitis

New generic Top-Level Domain Names (gTLDs) are all about innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity; they are about identifying new entrants, opening up competition and providing the domain name market with the opportunity to explore new means of interaction on the Internet. Equally, new gTLDs are a great opportunity for existing businesses and brands to reconsider their business practices and models and to adapt to new commercial realities and ideals. In both cases, however, it is important that some basic rules and principles are maintained so that terms are not abused, terms are assigned to their rightful owners and, where there are no rightful owners, a robust and fair process is in place to ensure that the assignment of words is done in a manner that does not endanger the Internet, does not confuse consumers or does not obstruct current societal structures.

I, for one, have been a proponent of new gTLDs from the early days of their policy development process within ICANN. I always believed that the existing gTLDs — and mainly the .com space — have created artificial scarcity, which is primarily responsible for much of the cybersquatting and the abuse trademarks experience. I do not share the same fears as those who argue that new gTLDs will create intolerable levels of cybersquatting or will necessitate defensive registrations from brand and trademark owners alike. As for the policy itself, I do not believe it is perfect and I feel that, for certain issues, ICANN could have taken a different direction, but, ultimately I recognize and respect ICANN'S multistakeholder governance structure and the decisions that have come out of it.

Lately, however, something has caught my attention, which can potentially create problems. Almost the same day ICANN opened up its application process, a tiny start-up was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a trademark for .bank (registration number 4085335). What is the problem with this? The problem is twofold: first of all, there is a general principle within traditional trademark law, which instructs that generic terms cannot be trademarked if they are to reflect what the term means. In this context, a company would not be able to register the word coffee and sell coffee. This would provide an unfair competitive advantage to any company and would, most likely, excommunicate all other similar companies selling coffee. Secondly, by granting this application, the USPTO is essentially leaving ICANN and its Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) with a big problem. Part of the whole exercise regarding the role of the GAC within the new gTLD process related to the GAC's role; this issue was resolved with the agreement that the GAC would be in the position to provide early advice to any new gTLD application, effectively giving the GAC the right to torpedo and determine the success of an application, which the GAC believes it raises issues of cultural significance or is contrary to national laws. To this end, it is exactly names like .bank that the GAC had in mind when they were pushing ICANN to insert this provision within the Applicant Guidebook: "[The GAC may advise] ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application 'dot-example'. The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision".

Now, with the USPTO granting trademark rights for .bank, this early warning mechanism becomes superfluous, and multiple rights are created for .bank. On the one side, there are the rights of the trademark owner; on the other, there is the GAC which believes that the term .bank is sensitive enough to interfere and whoever applies needs to go through a scrutiny process; and, finally, there is also the rumoured applicant of .bank — a joint effort made by the American Bankers Association (ABA) and BITS, part of Financial Services Roundtable. So, in practical terms, what the USPTO has essentially done is to provide the opportunity to an independent entity to object the application of .bank by asserting valid trademark rights.

So, this is a mess and a mess that will only get worse unless trademark offices around the world stop granting trademark registrations to .generics. The way things are right now, the GAC may sign off the .bank gTLD to ABA and BITS, but the owner of .bank will have valid claims to stop this application process or at least demand some sort of financial compensation for giving up the name to someone else. And, if he is really pissed off or he wants to retain .bank for his own personal use, he can then sue for trademark infringement. In any case, the trademark owner is the only winner here and both the GAC and the American Bankers should feel very pissed off with the USPTO. At this stage, the only solution is for the USPTO to accept that they screwed up and recall this trademark. 

By Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor for the Internet Society – The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ISOC or its position. Visit Page
Follow CircleID on
SHARE THIS POST

If you are pressed for time ...

... this is for you. More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Vinton Cerf, Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Share your comments

Konstantinos,I am very curious as to why Paul Tattersfield  –  Jan 18, 2012 12:07 PM PDT

Konstantinos,

I am very curious as to why you are surprised and as a result now seek to castigate the USPTO. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious what would happen and it’s not like .bank will be the only one is it?

These same issues are a regular occurrence in the second level at UDRP and often lead to the more egregious decisions. Decisions which I might add, disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged entities and individuals. Decisions to which there is no right of appeal and decisions which require expensive legal action to correct any inequities.

Further, to be fair to the USPTO their system offers more safeguards from abuse than other systems where trademarks are given out like confetti. Surely if you are looking to apportion blame or change policy wouldn’t it be more prudent to design a more sensible new gTLD policy? Though it wasn’t like ICANN wasn’t aware of these issues at the time when they were creating policy either was it?

Just because .banks is high profile doesn’t make it any more iniquitous than the awarding of other prime generics new gTLDs. The damage done to innocent third parties depends on who secures the .generic and more importantly how they intend to use them.  For all its assurances the new gTLD program gives ICANN very little long term control over the allocation of new gTLDs, acquisitions of new gTLD companies and the future use of new gTLDs.

Matters are not helped when a very prominent new gTLD registry company pushing out material encouraging companies to secure prime .generics so they can try and dominate their marketplace and their competitors. We have witnessed the result when everyone other than a single ICANN contracted party controlling the .generic has to compete from the second level – $millions squandered on litigation.(.xxx and .jobs)

ICANN’s whole thinking behind, not only .generics, but also .brands is fundamentally flawed. But what chance did the public interest have of building the best system when those leading discussions and deciding policy were not even prepared to discuss these core issues and within days of approving policy were hopping off for multi-million share options and executive packages premised on taking advantage of third party inequities?

What a mess!

Konstantinos, DomainIncite is reporting the .bank mark Paul Tattersfield  –  Jan 20, 2012 6:03 PM PDT

Konstantinos,

DomainIncite is reporting the .bank mark on the US supplemental register has been canceled.

While this has dealt with the single issue you have drawn attention to, it doesn't even begin to solve the underlying problem.

Yes, the .bank mark has been cancelled. Konstantinos Komaitis  –  Jan 21, 2012 6:27 AM PDT

Yes, the .bank mark has been cancelled. And I agree with you Paul - this doesn't solve a thing. We need to find a way to resolve the issue with generics and it is indeed something that ICANN and the USPTO should consider very carefully. This is not about trademark law any longer - it is about controlling and owning words that belong to the public domain.

Delusions of ICANN grandeur John Levine  –  Jan 25, 2012 8:09 AM PDT

While it was clearly a mistake to grant .BANK, why should the USPTO spend any effort whatsoever to solve ICANN's problems?

ICANN made a fundamental mistake over a decade ago to allow the trademark lawyers to have a defacto veto over domain names.  That's ICANN's problem to solve. not anyone else's.

Granting a generic trademark is not solving Konstantinos Komaitis  –  Jan 26, 2012 3:16 PM PDT

Granting a generic trademark is not solving ICANN problems - it is actually re-enforcing them. PTOs are there to apply the law- not the other way around. But, I agree with your conclusions John!

Article has Misleading Statements Stella Hart  –  Jan 27, 2012 8:29 AM PDT

To be fair, Asif LLC filed their trademark application for .bank over a year before the American Bankers Association copied their idea.

Speaking of misleading John Levine  –  Jan 27, 2012 9:43 AM PDT

You can't just apply for a trademark on any random string. You have to be using it in commerce or have a concrete plan to do so. I don't see that the applicant had anything other than a hope that it could squat on a TLD, which makes the application basically fraudulent.

This doesn't affect my basic point that it's absurd to expect the USPTO or any other government agency to solve problems that are entirely ICANN's.

To post comments, please login or create an account.

Related

Topics

IP Addressing

Sponsored byAvenue4 LLC

Whois

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

Cybercrime

Sponsored byThreat Intelligence Platform

New TLDs

Sponsored byAfilias

DNS Security

Sponsored byAfilias

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

Cybersecurity

Sponsored byVerisign