–

Last week, the ruling in Apple’s patent infringement lawsuit was released. Once upon a time the public was captivated by things like sensational celebrity trials. Now we have live-blogging of patent infringement verdicts. Oh, for simpler times!

In case you missed it, in a landmark decision that is certain to be appealed, Samsung was ordered to pay damages of over $1 billion for multiple infringements of Apple’s design and utility patents for smartphones and tablets. The infringement ruling covers trade-dress, design patents and utility patents including user-interface functions such as the now familiar pinch-and-zoom gesture, and the “rubberbanding” effect at screen margins.

What does this ruling mean? Here are a few thoughts:

• Experts have estimated that the average smartphone relies on 250,000 patented technologies that are in-licensed from various device and technology manufacturers around the world. While many patents are at issue in this lawsuit, Apple’s ‘915 patent (Patent No. US 7,844,915, Filing date: 7 Jan 2007)  for pinch-and-zoom and related scrolling gestures was central to Apple’s infringement claims. Pinch-and-zoom has become such an intuitive gesture that I’ve seen kids try and perform it on the screens of portable DVD players and seat-back TVs. This particular ruling will impact smartphone and tablet makers who rely on Android. But it’s important to remember that this is not an appeal-level decision, nor does it extend beyond the US, so time will tell how other smartphone makers respond in Canada or globally.
• The Android operating system would not offend Apple’s design and trade-dress rights (which cover the shape or appearance of the hardware), and Android has designed around the rubberbanding effect, so Android would not offend those claims of Apple’s patents. However, there is no doubt that Android smartphones and tablets all use pinch-and-zoom. The options are for Android (read: Google) to take a license from Apple, or design around with some alternate gesture. Invalidating the ‘915 patent would be another logical avenue. However, if that tactic had a good chance of success, Samsung would have succeeded by now.
• The jury form was so complex (have a look for yourself: Jury Form , courtesy of Groklaw) that observers were surprised at how quickly the jury returned a verdict. The jury’s findings and instructions will very likely be the subject of the appeal process.
• For a patent-by-patent, device-by-device breakdown of the verdict in this case, see this excellent review (courtesy of NDTV).
• Interestingly, the jury found that Samsung’s devices did NOT infringe Apple’s ‘889 design patent (see our earlier post: Apple and Samsung: The Design Patent Wars Continue).

Calgary – 07:00 MDT
No comments

`

.

Bookmark ipblog.ca on your iPhone, iPad, Android tablet or mobile device for updates and developments in Canadian intellectual property law, including practical information and commentary on intellectual property business issues, technology commercialization and developments in the law, copyright and patent questions, trade-mark law, software and IT outsourcing, and related areas including privacy and cleantech licensing.

ipblog has been published since 2006.  In 2009, we added applaw.ca to our site, covering legal developments in the growing mobile application industry.

We have surpassed 1 million page-views from readers around the world. It’s hard to compete against YouTube cats… but we try.

Thanks to all of our readers. We’ll be taking a break during the month of August, and will resume in September, 2012.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

In late June, Apple won one of the many battles that it is waging against one of its fiercest rivals – South Korea’s Samsung, manufacturer of the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Riding the wave of Google’s Android platform, Samsung has emerged as the world’s biggest handset maker, and arguably Apple’s biggest rival. Apple and Samsung are entagled in more ways than one, since Samsung also manufactures the A5 chipset that powers the latest models of iPad and iPhone. As the saying goes “Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.”

Apple’s latest win resulted in an injunction barring sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab in the US. That decision is being appealed. Meanwhile in the UK, Apple was ordered to publish a notice that Samsung did not copy the iPad. That decision is being appealed too. All of this is part of a global war (including Australia, Germany and the Netherlands) that stems from Apple’s claims that Samsung copied the design of the iPad. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the case – that worldwide IP infringement claims can be based on the design of a consumer product, not its function. And it’s a design that is successful precisely because of its clean, minimalist simplicity that eschews ornamental features of any kind. Check out this design patent (PDF) (Apple’s D504,889 design patent), filed in 2004, upon which the US injunction is based, in part. The two companies are currently headed to a jury trial in the US.

Lessons for business?

• Don’t forget to review relatively simple forms of intellectual property in your IP strategy. In this case, a simple industrial design (or in the US, a “design patent”) has provided ammunition in a battle between two of the most sophisticated technology companies on the planet.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT
No comments

`

In October, I will be presenting at the 5th Cloud Computing Law Conference in Calgary, Alberta (October 9 and 10, 2012). Check out the brochure for a full description, including the topic “ALLOCATING IP RISKS IN THE CLOUD”: Service providers often seek to impose standard form contracts for the provision of cloud computing services containing standards of services that are often on an “as-is” basis. This session will explore the process of negotiating warranties, indemnification and limitation of liability clauses to satisfactorily allocate risks, including: scope of warranties; service vs. product warranties; remedies available for breach of warranties; and scope of customary indemnification obligations.

Readers of ipblog.ca are eligible for a 15% discount (Email me for the registration discount code).

Relating Reading: ipblog’s Cloud Computing library of articles, including “The Cloud: What goes up must come down” and “Online Agreements: Click-Through Upheld“.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

Our earlier post (Domain Name is “Personal Property”) related to the decision in Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548, where an Ontario court had to decide if the domain name renner.com was intangible personal property “located in Ontario”. This was an important issue in the case, since a finding that the domain name was property located in Ontario would permit the court to take jurisdiction and the lawsuit to proceed. The court decided that there is an emerging consensus among other courts that domain names are a form of property, and found that domain names, for the purposes of Ontario law, can be considered intangible personal property. This case was denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Lojas Renner S.A. v. Tucows.Com Co., 2012 CanLII 28261 (SCC).

Calgary – 07:00

`

Apps are not just for Angry Birds anymore. The licensing of mobile apps is becoming more common for business-to-business software vendors who are extending the reach of their enterprise applications to take advantage of opportunities in mobile and cloud computing. If you are a vendor of enterprise software and you want to add mobile functionality, here are a few of the most important legal issues to consider:

1. Check the EULA:

Compared to the full suite of desktop functionality, the mobile app may represent a small piece of your overall software product. But even a mobile app needs an end-user license agreement (EULA). Cloud computing service providers may have service terms that are designed for web access to their software, and they may not perceive the need for a “traditional” EULA, but in the case of a mobile app, remember that this is a “traditional” license where a copy of the application resides on the user’s device and system. So point number 1 is to check the EULA.

Software vendors should understand that apps launched on the iOS platform will come with a “ready-made” EULA courtesy of Apple. Other platforms will come with other license terms. Software vendors should consider developing a custom EULA if there are good reasons for doing so after a risk assessment. A few other points to note: If you prepare your own EULA on the iOS platform, take note of Apple’s “mandatory terms” that must be included in every license. Under the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement, the default terms grant a “non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license”. If you don’t want to grant such a broad license, then consider a custom-made EULA.

2. Review Privacy:

App developers should get legal advice on privacy issues. The privacy problem with apps has been percolating for some time and several high-profile reports have brought attention to this issue. In several cases, app developers have (intentionally or otherwise) harvested private details about app users by dipping into address books and location-data. In Canada, the privacy landscape is complex, but is underpinned by private-sector privacy laws that apply to “personal information” across all industries, at both the federal and provincial level.

In the US, the California Attorney General recently entered into an agreement with mobile app platform vendors – Amazon, Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and Research In Motion – to improve privacy protections for app users. This arrangement implements certain “privacy principles” and requires app developers to have a privacy policy, something that would bring app developers in line with Canadian law. If you don’t have a privacy policy, then consider developing one along with the launch of your mobile app. It can be a useful exercise to determine what information is being collected, from whom, for what purpose.

3. Check the Data:

Ownership and control of data is a critical issue for end-users. In the case of mobile apps that are an add-on for broader enterprise or cloud-based software offerings, the data issue is even more complicated. Who owns it? Who is responsible for it? Where does the data reside? On the device, on customer’s server, on the vendor’s server, or with a third-party host in the cloud? These issues can be addressed within the app EULA, or it may be possible to cover them within the EULA for the enterprise software application. Data escrow may also be appropriate in some cases.

4. Distribution:

Consider where and how the mobile app will be distributed? For example, in some cases, mobile apps can be contained within a “closed” system, which permits distribution within a company. However, if you are a vendor wishing to distribute your mobile app to all of your customers, the easiest method of distribution may be, for example, through Apple’s App Store. This means the app will be available to users in over 60 jurisdictions around the world. Consider the jurisdictional issues – for example, one app developer realized that its marketing materials offended advertising rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, which triggered an FTC complaint and ultimately a fine.

5. Integration:

It goes without saying that your mobile app should be integrated with the other services or software products (whether these are desktop, virtualised or web-based services). But consider this both from a technical perspective as well as a legal perspective. Does the app EULA dovetail with the EULA for your enterprise software applications? What promises, warranties or limitations are available under each document? Does one agreement pick “Alberta law” while the other one falls under “California law”? Consider the situation where the enterprise EULA makes promises or guarantees that user-generated data will be archived by the licensor and provided in a particular format to the customer on request. If that data is collected through the mobile app, and resides on devices of users, then this promise may be difficult or impossible to perform.

6. Brands and Trade-marks:

Lastly, the marketing of mobile apps deserves particular attention. You may have secured trade-mark rights for your enterprise software, but you should also consider trade-mark rights for the app itself. Apple’s App Store is still something of a wild-west when it comes to trade-mark rights. Consider treating the mobile app just like you would any other product – branding and brand protection should be considered in the most important jurisdictions where your customers will be downloading and using the app.

This article was initially published on Corporate LiveWire.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

For copyright fans, today kicks off a frenzy of reading Supreme Court decisions. Judgments in the 5 copyright cases which were heard last December were released today:

1. ESAC v. SOCAN
2. Rogers v. SOCAN
3. SOCAN v. Bell
4. Alberta v. Access Copyright
5. Re:Sound

IPOsgoode’s exellent summary appears here. Michael Geist’s review appears here. Further coverage to follow.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

We have reviewed a few decisions relating to arbitration clauses in intellectual property license agreements (see here ). Courts in the US have shown that they are willing to uphold arbitrator’s decisions. What is the law in Alberta?

The court in TheraVitae Ltd. v. Kwalata Trading Limited, 2011 ABQB 626 (CanLII) dealt with alleged breaches of stem cell therapy licencing agreements.  The licensing agreements contained arbitration clauses and a dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to arbitration.

Under the Arbitration Act (Alberta), a party must demonstrate that they are entitled to appeal an arbitrator’s decision. If the arbitration agreement includes the right of appeal to court, then either party can appeal the arbitrator’s decision on a question of law, on a question of fact or on a question of mixed law and fact. If the arbitration agreement is silent on the topic of appeal, then Section 44(2) of the Act allows for appeals on questions of law, provided certain criteria are met. Those criteria are:

1. the importance to the parties of the matters at stake in the arbitration justifies an appeal, and
2. whether the determination of the question of law at issue will significantly affect the rights of the parties.

In those two situations, a court may review the arbitrator’s decision. However, Section 44(3) prohibits a court from granting leave where the question being appealed was specifically referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision. In other words, where the arbitrator was asked to rule on a particular question of law, the decision of the arbitrator will not be reviewed by the court. In the TheraVitae decision, the court decided that the question was specifically referred to the arbitrator, so the decision was not reviewable by the court.

Lessons for business?

• Arbitrator’s decisions will be given deference, so if you want to refer your disputes to binding arbitration, be aware that there may be no right of appeal to the courts if you are not happy with that decision.
• Arbitration clauses and agreements must be reviewed carefully to ensure that the parties are aware of the scope of the arbitrator’s authority, and the rights of appeal that may be available.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

Many intellectual property license agreements refer disputes to arbitration under an arbitration clause. After the arbitrator renders a decision, can that decision be appealed to court? Or is it final and binding on the parties?

This issue was addressed in Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  , 660 F.3d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 2011) a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the US. In that case, the court dealt with an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision under a license agreement. The court was clear that it had no interest in vacating or overturning the arbitrator’s award, unless the award is reviewable under one of the 4 circumstances in Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (US):

1. if the award was procured by “corruption, fraud, or undue means”;
2. in the case of “partiality or corruption in the arbitrators”;
3. where the arbitrators were “guilty of misconduct” or misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
4. where the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that “a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”

According to this decision, if it doesn’t fall into one of these 4 categories, then the court will not interfere with the arbitrator’s decision.

Other appeal-level courts in the US are split on this issue, and some have reviewed arbitration decisions based on an independent category, known as “manifest disregard of the law.” Since that is not a specified ground for appeal in Section 10, it was not accepted by the Seventh Circuit in the Affymax decision. The lessons for business? In the US, arbitrator’s decisions will not be subject to review by the courts unless the review falls into one of these 4 narrow grounds.

What about the law in Alberta? Watch for Part 3.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

Bill C-11, the long-awaited and long-debated Copyright Modernization Act has received Royal Assent… but is not yet in force. For an overview of the Act, see the government’s legislative summary.

Calgary – 11:00 MDT

It is a fundamental feature of copyright law that it protects only original expression, not ideas. Applied to software, the law of copyright tells us that certain elements of a computer program are not protectable by copyright. For example, purely functional elements such as the structure of a library, or database, or elements dictated by the operating system, can fall outside the scope of copyright protection, since those elements lack the originality necessary for copyright.

In Tetris Holding LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., an app developer was found to have infringed copyright in the famous Tetris game.  The puzzle game Mino was, by the defendant’s own admission, inspired by Tetris. However, the defendant maintained that it only copied unprotected elements, a conclusion that the developer reached after researching copyright law. The court did not agree. After an exhaustive review of the idea-expression dichotomy (40-pages worth of anaylsis, if you want to read more), the court decided that Mino did infringe the protectable “look and feel” of Tetris. According to this case, you shouldn’t assume that expression is unprotectible merely because it is related to a game rule or game function.

UPDATE: In the Oracle v Google case (see our earlier coverage here), the judge decided that APIs in this case were not eligible for copyright protection. This amounts to a complete loss for Oracle in its suit against Google for infringement of the Java APIs used in Google’s Android software. This case is expected to go up to appeal.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

The House of Commons has now passed Bill C-11, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, with only minor amendments at the committee stage. The Bill has been sent up to the Senate where it has passed First Reading. Second Reading could commence as soon as today.

After years of ponderous debate, this quick pace suggests the Bill will progress through the Senate efficiently. However, the Senate rises for the summer at the end of June, leaving little more than a week to push the legislation through. If the Bill does not become law by the end of June, then it will be pushed into the fall calendar. The Senate returns from the summer recess on September 17th … (wish we were all so lucky).

Stay tuned.

Calgary – 2:00 MDT

This 2010 case is a good reminder that courts will give effect to arbitration clauses if that’s what the parties have chosen in their license agreements.

• In PRM Energy Sys., Inc. v. Primenergy, LLC, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010) , the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit decided to uphold an arbitration clause in a patent license agreement, which was drafted to cover “all disputes arising under” the agreement. A complex series of agreements and disputes led PRM to sue Kobe Steel, a non-party or “non-signatory” to the original license agreement that contained the arbitration clause. However, Kobe Steel convined the court that the arbitration clause should be enforced. The court decided that PRM’s claims were so intertwined with patent license that contained the arbitration clause that it would be unfair to allow PRM to rely on the license agreement in making its claims, but to avoid the arbitration clause of that same agreement.

In Canada, courts have also shown that they are prepared to uphold arbitration clauses. Consider this case:

• The case of University of Toronto v. John N. Harbinson Ltd. 2005 CanLII 47089 (ON SC), dealt with a broad arbitration clause that said: “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising from this Agreement or its breach, termination or alleged invalidity shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitrations Act of Ontario, as amended.” In this case, the court decided that the arbitration clause should be upheld, particularly since no Patent Act claims or remedies were being sought.

Related reading: See Did You Say Arbitration in Kazakhstan?, reviewing a case where arbitration was triggered by one of the parties, and the Alberta Court decided that the breach of contract questions fell within the scope of the arbitration under the law of Kazakhstan.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

A California court has approved a nationwide class action lawsuit against Apple, based on claims that the device has tracked user location and movements without their consent. This is the same claim that was dismissed once, with leave to amend (see App Law: Update on Privacy). The plaintiffs amended and came back for round two. In a partial win for Apple, the privacy claims were dismissed. However, the remainder of the claims have been permitted to proceed. Apple’s defence is that its terms of service and user agreements will provide cover. The court has indicated that there is some ambiguity about whether the terms cover the scope of information that was collected.

For Apple’s lawyers, this is not a new phenomenon. These lawsuits are also in the works:

• A class action lawsuit related to iPods;
• Customers are trying to get a class-action for iTunes refunds;
• A class action based on false-advertising claims related to Siri.

However, the user-tracking lawsuit looks like the most interesting of the bunch, and may put Apple’s app store terms and conditions to the test.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

ICANN has revealed the applicants for new generic top-level-domains (gTLDs). (See our earlier post: Let a Thousand .Flowers Bloom? Update on New gTLDs ) This is the list of companies and organizations that want to run their own domain registry, though the new domains have not yet been approved by ICANN. Some points to note:

• Many of the applicants will walk away empty-handed. For example, there are 12 applications for the .APP domain, and only one one of them will be awarded the right to establish that domain.
• A number of global trade-mark owners have staked their claim in this new space – for example, the owners of the APPLE, AUDI, FORD and AMERICAN EXPRESS brands have each applied to establish these brands as gTLDs.
• Yes, someone has applied to establish .FLOWERS, as predicted in our earlier post… there are four applications for this domain.
• Some brand owners have elected to go with generic applications – for example, both Safeway and Walmart applied for .GROCERY
• Internationalized domains are part of the list, including 삼성 (That’s SAMSUNG in Korean).
• Google appears to be among the most enthusiastic applicants. They established a separate company – Charleston Road Registry Inc. – to apply for more than 100 top-level-domains.

ICANN is pitching this as “The day it all becomes clear”, but the process is far from it. An “objection period” for new gTLDs now begins and ICANN states that this period “is intended to remain open for approximately seven months”. Not exactly clear. The proposed “Trademark Clearinghouse” is also not yet established, though this will be critical for brand owners to manage rights protection issues when the new registries are launched. Stay tuned.

Calgary – 11:00 MDT
No comments

.

In the copyright and patent infringement lawsuit between Oracle and Google (we posted on the copyright aspects here: Copyright Protection for APIs and SDKs and APIs: Do they have copyright protection?), a decision was reached last week by the jury on the patent side of the claim. The jury has determined that Google did not infringe the two patents that Oracle held for its Java system. This leaves the Oracle case in tatters, with no real prospect of meaningful damages, even in light of an earlier finding that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright in the Java APIs. The copyright side of the claim is still muddled – the judge has not yet decided the issue of whether APIs can be the subject of copyright protection, and the jury failed to agree on whether Google had a “fair use” defence to the copyright infringement that did take place… assuming that APIs can enjoy copyright that is capable of being infringed.

Still with me? We might expect some clarity on the copyright issue if the judge issues a determination on copyrightability. What’s more likely is that the patent decision is appealed and the copyright decision is sent back down for a retrial, leaving the entire issue unresolved.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

Join the Field Law IP & Technology Group for a breakfast seminar on June 6, 2012, in Nisku, Alberta, on the following subjects:

• patents for oilfield service companies;
• intellectual property issues;
• non-disclosure and confidential information in the oil patch;
• copyright and trade-marks, brand protection.

Registration details: RSVP to rsvpEdmonton@fieldlaw.com or (403) 260-8502.

Calgary – 10:30 MDT

.

This month marks the 25th year of operations for the .CA domain, Canada’s country-code top-level domain (ccTLD). It was originally allocated to John Demco, an employee of UBC, who operated the domain on a volunteer basis between 1987 and 2000, when it was formally transferred to CIRA (the Canadian Internet Registration Authority). I still recall the days when the mentality around domain name disputes was quite simple – someone knew someone who knew Jon Postel, who could simply reallocate the nameservers. Today, .CA disputes are resolved through formal arbitration under the CDRP – the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, version 1.3 which came into effect August 22, 2011. A few recent decisions:

• Transfer Granted: In Oakley Inc. v. Zhou Yayang, the famous manufacturer of sunglasses and sportswear claimed rights in the domain name DISCOUNT-OAKLEYSUNGLASSES-SALE.CA. This case was a classic “squatter” case which featured a registrant who filed no defence. Evidence that the domain was being used to sell Oakley products outside of Oakley’s distribution chain. A long line of decisions was cited to support Oakley’s win, and the domain name was ordered to be transferred.
• Claim Dismissed: In Ebates Canada Inc. v. Cranhill & Co., there was a dispute about the EBATES.CA domain name. Ebates Canada claimed that it was the exclusive Canadian licensee of the trade-mark EBATES, a mark which is the subject of two competing trade-mark applications in the Canadian trade-marks office. Cranhill, the registrant, argued that it enjoyed earlier use of the name EBATES dating back to 1994 and had rights in 2000, the year the domain name was registered. In deciding to dismiss the complaint, the panelists noted that the claimant Ebates Canada Inc. was not incorporated until 2011. It did not exist in 2000 and could not have had any rights at the time the domain name was registered.

What’s the overall chance of success? If recent statistics are any guide, decisions are most often rendered in favour of applicants. There have been 51 decisions in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (to date) and of those decisions, roughly 80% of decisions have resulted in a transfer; in about 20% of the cases, the claim was dismissed. That may reflect the fact that applicants will only pursue a remedy through the CDRP when they have a strong case. In about 64% of the cases, a single arbitrator was used, as opposed to a panel of 3 decison-makers. Interestingly, of the cases in which the claim was dismissed, the majority (72%) were decided by a 3-member panel.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

As a follow-up to our earlier article (SDKs and APIs: Do they have copyright protection?), the jury in the Oracle v. Google lawsuit issued a decision last week that Google’s Android software infringed copyright in the overall structure, sequence and organization of Oracle’s Java code. However, the jury failed to return a decision on Google’s “fair use” defence. Oracle’s main complaint was that Google’s Android software used Java code – in particular, 37 Java APIs (application programming interfaces) – that was not properly licensed from Oracle. Google has maintained that the use of any Java APIs in Android is protected by a “fair use” defence.

You’d think a jury decision would be a step forward. However, the issue of copyright protection of APIs remains unsettled, since the jury merely assumed copyright protection for the purposes of this issue, without a clear decision by the court on that point. The failure to decide on the “fair use” defence also leaves the issue open. The jury was deadlocked on that question, potentially leading to a mistrial. Indeed, Google filed for a new trial last week.

This jury decision is really just a way-station on the road… a very long road. The next phase of the lawsuit will deal with Oracle’s patent infringement claims; which will be followed by a further hearing to determine any damages. Stay tuned.

Related Reading: Copyrightability of Java APIs would be consistent with law and practice, not a ‘substantial departure’ for industry (FOSS Patents)

Calgary – 07:00

 

You may recall our earlier posts describing the gTLD process (see: The New gTLDs: Who, What and When). 

ICANN‘s process introduces new generic Top-Level-Domains (or gTLDs), expanding the domain name system from the current familar strings such as .com, .net and .ca, etc. to who knows what… .flowers, .lawyers or .anything. The application period was due to close on April 12, 2012. May 1, 2012 was slated as “Reveal Day”, when the applicants and their proposed TLDs were to be published. So far, some 2,091 applications along with USD$350 million in application fees have been submitted to ICANN. The May 1st deadline has passed without the publication of the application information, because ICANN has suffered a “software glitch” which must be resolved before the application period can be reopened and finalized.  

Once that is complete, ICANN will publish the names of applicants and their proposed TLDs. This triggers a seven-month objection period, during which rightsholders can file a complaint. A recent article from Managing Intellectual Property reports that the “Trademark Clearinghouse” is also behind schedule.

Even if half of the applications are approved, that means the introduction of a thousand new generic Top-Level-Domains. Trade-mark owners, brace yourselves.

Related reading: Lawyers Weekly: Domain Name Article

Calgary – 07:00 MDT