The BRG needs you! ... to comment on ICANN's proposed changes to the Registry Agreement for the new TLDs for the .brand Registries
As in-house trade mark attorney and in her capacity as member of the Board of the Brand Registry Group (BRG), Sarah has kindly summarised the proposed changes to the Registry Agreement from a .brand perspective (as issued by the BRG). More information and background can be found here. Changes would be made to allow the owner of a .brand TLD to:
- use a single trusted Registrar (clause 2.9). This change will allow trade mark owners who have applied for new TLDs to promote and maintain trust in their .Brand Registries.
- have the option to object to the re-delegation of their .brand TLD during a 2 year “cooling off” period (clause 4.5). This would allow the .Brand to avoid any risk of consumer confusion or any other unintended collision consequences after the winding down of the Registry. This cooling off period would not prohibit a third party making an application for the TLD in the interim.
- be exempt from the Code of Conduct (Specification 9) provided the Registry meets the requirements of a .Brand TLD (under Specification 13). .Brands would instead be contractually obliged to conduct internal reviews at least annually (which certified reviews would be submitted to ICANN, and which may be made publicly available) and to inform ICANN if any change of circumstances would cause them to no longer meet the .Brand definition. In the event that a .Brand registry ceased to meet the definition, then Specification 13 would no longer apply.
If any owners of a .brand TLD are interested in joining the BRG, they are encouraged to email the BRG Director General Philip Sheppard: outreach[at]brandregistrygroup.org.
The BRG needs you! ... to comment on ICANN's proposed changes to the Registry Agreement for the new TLDs for the .brand Registries
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Rating:
Reviewed by Birgit Clark
on
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html