The gTLD Series (Post 2 of 3) - The Application Process

Posted by David Kramer on March 30, 2011

Last week, I blogged about an overview of the gTLD opportunity.  This week, I wanted to outline the application process and intellectual property issues associated with the development.

Application Process 

  • The first application window is expected to open in the summer or fall of 2011. No firm date has been set, but once the window opens it will remain open for several weeks at a minimum.
  • In the application, applicants will be required to demonstrate their financial ability to establish and administer a stable and secure gTLD Registry, as well as the integrity and trustworthiness of the applicant entity and its directors, officers, partners, and major shareholders.
  • Applicants will also be required to demonstrate a clear understanding and accomplishment of some groundwork toward the key technical and operational aspects of a gTLD Registry operation.
  • Applicants also must provide a business plan outlining the operational details of the Registry
  • Once the application has been filed, it will be subject to initial ICANN review, as well as public comment and third-party objection. Extended evaluation may be necessary in some situations.
  • In the event that one or more parties applies for the same (or confusingly similar) gTLD, the final contention resolution procedure is auction.
  • If the application is approved and all objections and contentions are overcome, the applicant will enter a Registry Agreement with ICANN the gTLD will be delegated after a pre-delegation technical check (please note that the Registry Agreement has not yet been finalized, but a draft version is attached hereto for your review).
  • The time from application to delegation can range from 8 to 20 months depending on the obstacles faced during the review process.

Continue Reading

Emotional intelligence: Driving Success in Today's Business Environment

Posted by Christina Martini on March 29, 2011

Reposted from the latest version of our Intellectual Property and Technology newsletter (Q1, 2011) (PDF here).  Also available at DLA Piper's website.

The legal profession has long revered individuals who demonstrate high intelligence and strong technical competence. In recent years, however, there has been growing recognition that another critical part of professional success is emotional intelligence, or EQ. While being technically proficient at one’s craft is essential, for both professionals and organizations it is no longer enough. As the legal profession increasingly aligns with clients’ business needs and methodologies, the soft skills embodied in EQ will often make the meaningful difference in determining the trajectory of one’s career and a company’s success.
While the concept of emotional intelligence has been around for many years, it became mainstream in the mid-1990s with Daniel Goleman’s groundbreaking book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Goleman focuses on a skill set that drives leadership, performance and success:
Self-awareness – understanding yourself and your emotions
Self-management – managing oneself in response to people and situations
Social awareness – sensing and responding to others’ emotions and comprehending social networks
Relationship management – inspiring and developing others while managing conflict
While some people may possess these skills innately, it is possible to acquire them through training and practice. Along with one’s technical abilities, these skills contribute to personal and professional success and drive the ability to be effective.
Research in the fields of neuroscience and psychology strongly supports the importance of emotional intelligence in driving professional success. Indeed, EQ has been determined to be just as important, if not more, than one’s IQ. In fact, some researchers have concluded that, across many professions, EQ accounts for 58 percent of one’s performance.1 Moreover, 90 percent of high performers have been found to have a high EQ, whereas only 20 percent of low performers do.2 Notably, the legal profession is continually evolving its efforts to develop and reward EQ-based skills. In such areas as business development, talent recruitment, mentoring, client service, diversity and inclusion, project management, and professional and community leadership, EQ-based skills provide common threads. They enable effective development of relationships, collegiality, team building, strategic partnering, intuition, empathy, humility, compassion, understanding and the ability to influence others. The common denominators among these traits are self-awareness and effectively developing a meaningful connection with others. By practicing these skills on a regular basis, lawyers can become more effective, both personally and professionally. This ultimately accrues to the benefit of individual practitioners, their organizations, their clients and their communities.
In practice, lawyers with high EQs also differentiate themselves from their peers by demonstrating an array of talents and a propensity for flexibility and leadership. This is particularly important during challenging economic times, when law firms and corporations alike are continually looking for ways to streamline their workforce. Those with high EQs are often powerful managers and leaders, resilient, optimistic, confident and creative communicators with sound decision-making abilities. These skills will make them not only successful professionals, but also effective agents for EQ-based qualities.
In future editions of the IPT News, this column will examine emotional intelligence as related to aspects of the legal profession, including client service, case management, talent management and mentoring, diversity and inclusion, leadership and business development. In the context of EQ skills and competencies, we will look at ourselves and the organizations where we work, providing a new window on our personal and professional relationships and ways we can be effective agents for change and success.
 
1 Travis Bradberry & Jean Greaves, Emotional Intelligence 2.0 20-21 (TalentSmart 2009).
2 Id. at 21.

The legal profession has long revered individuals who demonstrate high intelligence and strong technical competence. In recent years, however, there has been growing recognition that another critical part of professional success is emotional intelligence, or EQ. While being technically proficient at one’s craft is essential, for both professionals and organizations it is no longer enough. As the legal profession increasingly aligns with clients’ business needs and methodologies, the soft skills embodied in EQ will often make the meaningful difference in determining the trajectory of one’s career and a company’s success.

While the concept of emotional intelligence has been around for many years, it became mainstream in the mid-1990s with Daniel Goleman’s groundbreaking book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Goleman focuses on a skill set that drives leadership, performance and success:

  1. Self-awareness – understanding yourself and your emotions
  2. Self-management – managing oneself in response to people and situations
  3. Social awareness – sensing and responding to others’ emotions and comprehending social networks
  4. Relationship management – inspiring and developing others while managing conflict

While some people may possess these skills innately, it is possible to acquire them through training and practice. Along with one’s technical abilities, these skills contribute to personal and professional success and drive the ability to be effective.

Continue Reading

Video: Being a Legal Role Model

Posted by Christina Martini on March 27, 2011

By way of background, I have a monthly column in the Chicago Lawyer called Inside Out, in which I provide the private practice perspective on a variety of issues/questions raised by the editor of the magazine (Olivia Clarke, the interviewer in the videos).  David Susler, the gentleman in this video, is also my husband.  He is an in-house attorney, and offers that perspective with respect to the questions/issues.

Each month, the magazine publishes a transcript of our monthly interview, while the video component is available on YouTube and on the Chicago Lawyer website -- each with additional content. 

Although these videos are not central to the issues of trademark and copyright, I thought sharing my outside work on this forum might serve as additional perspective for other attorneys reading this blog.

This particular video focused on David and I sharing stories about who our role models are, particularly in the context of our careers.  Enjoy!

ICANN approves .XXX Top Level Domain Name

Posted by Debbie Rosenbaum on March 25, 2011

My colleague David Kramer has been blogging about the gTLD process announced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  But ICANN is making other waves this month with the approval of .xxx as the "progressive new home for adult entertainment online".

The new domain will be administered, managed, and supported by ICM Registry, which says it is a "completely independent entity with no affiliation, current or historic, with the adult entertainment industry."

The .xxx TLD was first proposed in 2000 by ICM Registry and resubmitted in 2004, but it faced strong opposition from politicians and conservative groups. ICANN’s board of directors ultimately rejected .xxx in 2006, concerned that the TLD might make ICANN responsible for enforcing laws and regulations over Internet porn. However, supporters of the domain brought it back for consideration in 2007 and again in 2010. After many years of debate, on March 18 2011, ICANN's board approved the execution of the registry agreement for the .xxx top level domain.

CM Registry has argued that the .xxx domain is beneficial to the public, because it indicates a clear signal that the domain contains pornography.  Others argue that the creation of a top-level domain for adult-themed sites may not have the impact on internet security some hope.

The domains will be limited to the adult industry, and ICM says adult sites that already own .com TLDs will be able to reserve their .xxx domains early so that they can "protect their brand names and intellectual property rights within .xxx."

Google Book Settlement Rejection

Posted by Gina Durham on March 24, 2011
The District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused to approve  the proposed settlement of copyright claims arising from Google's digitization of books and presentation of excerpts online in a class action copyright infringement suit brought by the Authors Guild and others against Google, Inc.  The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., SDNY, No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 3/22/2011.
 
 Plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that Google had  violated their copyrights and those of other Rightsholders of Books and Inserts by scanning their Books, creating an electronic database and displaying short excerpts without the permission of the copyright holders. In 2008, Google announced an agreement to pay $125 million dollars to settle the lawsuit. The settlement agreement also included licensing provisions, allowing Google to sell personal and institutional subscriptions to its database of books.  In late 2009, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement, seeking court approval of the settlement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Several groups, including the Department of Justice and some class members, objected to the amended settlement agreement on a variety of grounds.   This week, Judge Chin, writing for the District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the settlement.
 
The settlement was an attempt to balance concerns about copyright protection, antitrust issues, and privacy issues with the premise that "the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many."  However, certain objections regarding the proposed settlement's potential impact on copyright holders and on free competition prompted the Court to reject the agreement.
 
While Judge Chin expressed little concern with the backward looking release aspect of the settlement, he concluded that there were portions of the settlement that went too far, describing it as “an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation ... The questions of who should be entrusted with guardianship over orphan books, under what terms, and with what safeguards are matters more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties.  Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that "it is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause's objectives."  Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003)."    The judge continued: "While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] would simply go too far ... Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case."  In the end, the Judge hinted that changing the procedure from opt-out to opt-in might past judicial muster.  
 
It will be interesting to continue to monitor this issue.  Some commentators predict that Google may pursue and opt-in approach to digitization in both the U.S. and Europe.  

By Gina Durham & Debbie Rosenbaum

The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., SDNY, No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 3/22/2011.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected the proposed settlement of legal claims arising from Google's digitization of books and online display of excerpts in a class action copyright infringement suit brought by the Authors Guild and others against Google. 

Plaintiffs filed the suit claiming that Google had violated their copyrights and those of other copyright rightsholders by scanning their books, creating an electronic database, and displaying short excerpts without the permission of the copyright holders. In 2008, Google announced an agreement to pay $125 million dollars to settle the lawsuit. The settlement agreement also included licensing provisions, allowing Google to sell personal and institutional subscriptions to its database of books.  In 2009, the parties filed an amended settlement agreement, seeking court approval of the settlement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Several groups, including the Department of Justice and some class members, objected to the amended settlement agreement on a variety of grounds. This week, Judge Chin, writing for the District Court for the Southern District of New York, rejected the settlement.

The settlement was an attempt to balance concerns about copyright protection, antitrust issues, and privacy issues with the premise that "the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many."  However, certain objections regarding the proposed settlement's potential impact on copyright holders and on free competition prompted the Court to reject the agreement.

While Judge Chin expressed little concern with the backward-looking release aspect of the settlement, he concluded that there were portions of the settlement that went too far -- particularly the future releases -- describing it as “an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation."  Judge Chin continued, "The questions of who should be entrusted with guardianship over orphan books, under what terms, and with what safeguards are matters more appropriately decided by Congress than through an agreement among private, self-interested parties.  Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that 'it is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause's objectives.' Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 (2003)."    

Judge Chin postulated that "[w]hile the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] would simply go too far ... Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case."  In the end, the Judge hinted that changing the procedure from opt-out to opt-in might past judicial muster.  

The court accepted over 500 briefs from various parties supporting or opposing the settlement and early last year held a hearing on the fairness of the settlement. Statements released from the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers suggest that they are more interested in renegotiating the settlement than appealing the decision. It will be interesting to continue to monitor this issue.  Some commentators predict that Google may pursue and opt-in approach to digitization in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gTLD Series (Post 1 of 3) - Overview

Posted by David Kramer on March 23, 2011

Over the last few months, many of our clients have asked us about ICANN’s expansion of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and we thought it would be beneficial to blog about our garnered knowledge.

In the past, entities have had the opportunity to register second level domain names under existing top level domains such as “dot-com,” “dot-net” and “dot-mobi,” resulting in domain names in the commonly accepted format <dlapiper.com>. However, sometime this year private entities will have the opportunity to apply to create and manage completely new generic Top Level Domains (“gTLDs”).

Obtaining and managing a gTLD is not as simple as registering a second level domain name. Rather, by obtaining a gTLD a company would be entering the business of domain name Registry and a large investment in expertise and technology would likely be necessary. As such, when deciding whether to move forward with a gTLD application, close cooperation will be necessary between the Legal, Marketing and IT departments, at a minimum. We also strongly recommend Executive involvement in the decision-making process given the scope of this undertaking.

It is important to note that no trademark rights are required to apply for a particular gTLD. Therefore, while consideration of brand-centric gTLDs such as “dot-dlapiper” is important, it is also critical to consider the opportunities associated with more generic gTLDs such as “dot-lawfirm” or “dot-law,” for example.

Another important consideration is the intended breadth of Registry activities once the gTLD has been delegated. Specifically, if  the Company successfully acquires a new gTLD, it must decide whether second level domain registrations will be available to the public at large, to a specific subgroup of the public, or only for internal use.

For example, the “dot-com” and “dot-net” gTLDs are public, so any individual or entity can register a second level domain name under those gTLDs. However, the “dot-museum” and “dot-aero” gTLDs have specific requirements that Registrants must meet before becoming eligible to obtain second level domains (i.e. must be an official museum organization, etc…). In the case of new gTLDs, it will be possible to limit second level registrations even further such that only the proprietor of the gTLD could use second level domain names.

In our next post, we will lay out the key aspects of the application procedure, as well as a discussion of the rights protection mechanisms that have been put in place to protect intellectual property from third-party infringement.

Winter/Spring Q1, 2011 IPT Newsletter

Posted by Ann Ford on March 22, 2011

IPT9_thumb.jpg

 

Our team just released the latest version of our Intellectual Property and Technology newsletter (Q1, 2011) (PDF here). Download our latest edition of this newsletter for articles on these topics and more:

Reprocessing and resale of single use medical devices: a multinational view
Current developments in the trilateral patent offices
Your own dot com: ICANN annouces new gTLD rollout
Patent litigation forum shopping in the E

 

Download our latest edition of this newsletter for articles on these topics and more:

  • Reprocessing and resale of single use medical devices: a multinational view
  • Current developments in the trilateral patent offices
  • Your own dot com: ICANN annouces new gTLD rollout
  • Patent litigation forum shopping in the EU

Be sure to check out Ryan Compton and Debbie Rosenbaum's article on ICANN's gTLD rollout on page 8!

IP ROUNDUP: MAR. 21

Posted by Debbie Rosenbaum on March 21, 2011

Annnndddd we're back from a small hiatus.  Since the last IP Roundup, there have been a ton of great stories and analyses on Trademark and Copyright Law around the Internet.  

IPT newsletter, now available in Japanese

Posted by Debbie Rosenbaum on March 14, 2011

The Japanese-language edition of the Intellectual Property and Technology News, Q4 2010, is now available as an electronic booklet. 

DO YOUR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE POLICIES CONSIDER SOCIAL MEDIA?

Posted by Debbie Rosenbaum on March 01, 2011

TVA.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

From "The Venture Alley," a blog by DLA lawyers about business and legal issues important to Seattle-area entrepreneurs, startups, venture capitalists and angel investors.

Posted by Trent Dykes on September 20, 2010

Public companies are increasingly turning to social media to market their products and services and drive revenues. Given the sheer number of people who tweet, blog and post, the unique ability to target a message to a desired demographic and the relatively low cost of digital media marketing efforts relative to traditional advertising, such efforts are only going to increase. At many public companies, anyone from the C-level management team to the sales and marketing teams to individual employees – including those who are not designated as company spokespersons under the company’s communications policies – may be using social media to promote the company’s products and services.

The Typical Communications Policy May Predate Social Media

Most public companies have implemented policies aimed in part at (1) designating a very limited group of specific individuals who are authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the corporation, and (2) restricting certain forms of employee communications. These may include corporate communications policies, crisis communications policies, insider trading policies, investor relations policies and other policies, all of which have evolved as a matter of good corporate governance practice and in the interest of limiting liability for communications that may be attributed to the corporation. 

... To read the rest of this article, please click here to visit "The Venture Alley."