Worldipreview.com published an article (initially posted on TBO) that the France.com tm case has been resolved in favor of the French state.
From the article:
In December 2014, the French State opposed the application based on its figurative international registration for ‘France’ (number 1032440) where the word appears underneath an image of the Eiffel Tower, with a French flag in the middle of the Tower.
The country claimed there would be a likelihood of confusion with its earlier mark, registered in 2010.
In October 2015—by which point the rights to the ‘France.com’ application had been transferred from Frydman to France.com, Inc, a US company founded by Frydman—the European Union Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) Opposition Division rejected the opposition, prompting the French State to appeal.
You can read the full article to read each ruling the EU courts made.
Tip of the cap to Namepros member Jahe
crazy story
The prevailing notion is that direct navigation wants an officially sanctioned site. This ends years of disappointing visitors of the domain expecting it hosted by the Country only to find it wasn’t, many from abroad interested. Can’t blame them.
By no means is precedent set impacting Amazon. Why go there?
Appreciate the hat tip Raymond. This decision should be dissected by anyone that owns geo-domains, but everyone overall. Through the ACPA/WIPO/UDRP these complainants are seizing million dollar assets with little resistance…
How’s that ICANN transition away from US oversight looking now?
And where is everyone to mention how appalling and insane this is? Cat got your tongues?
Perhaps you might explain what this article, and the events described in it, have to do with ICANN in the first place.
A US applicant filed a trademark application in the EU for a “FRANCE.COM” mark.
The French government opposed the trademark application, and has ultimately prevailed in that opposition.
Is ICANN supposed to be deciding who gets their applications for trademarks registered in Europe?
I will not! 😀 But I will explain that I was confident with a 99.9% certainty or so that you would do this. 😀 I would also suggest, however, that even if the “transition” could not have formally prevented this, which I’m open to hear about by those who (perish the thought) know more about the topic than I do, such as yourself perhaps, that nonetheless it has had a psychological influence that emboldens various US and US-citizen adverse actions that would not have taken place before.
Hmm, let’s see…
“Jean-Noel Frydman owned and operated the domain from 1994 until last month when a court ruling gave it to the government” (independent.co.uk)
Yup, I’m suggesting this never would happened prior to the “transition.”
I’m also suggesting that if you are not among those who would declare how “appalling and insane” that is, then you have become part of the problem. You might have a nice public track record with the UDRP cases you take, popularity with the industry luminaries, you even have a great sense of humor at times which I will say so myself, but if you or anyone is not opposing this latest extreme perversity then there is a definitely a very big problem in Denmark. And beyond Denmark. More like earth plus The Twilight Zone in fact.
It most certainly would have happened before the transition.
First off, “who gets to register a trademark in the EU” was never up to ICANN in any way shape or form whatsoever. This individual decided to file a trademark application in the EU. If YOU go to Europe and you are looking to do business there by filing a trademark application there, then YOU are the one who decided that the relevant European laws apply to you.
Second, if you, as someone in the US, are sued in Europe, then it is your choice whether you want to submit yourself to the jurisdiction of those courts in Europe or not. If you choose not to, then you can challenge enforcement of a judgment if the party suing you decides to attempt enforcement in the US. There are a lot of branches in that decision tree, but the registrant of this domain name decided to submit to the jurisdiction of a French court in a French lawsuit. In the course of that lawsuit between two private companies, the French government decided to intervene in the proceedings. That was an unexpected move, but did not change the fact that the parties to the lawsuit were both properly in front of that court, and subject to the relevant laws.
If you think that the NTIA/ICANN contract had some magic power to prevent any court outside of the US from exercising jurisdiction over a matter where all parties have agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of that court (or were otherwise already subject to jurisdiction as a consequence of their location or where they did business), then you are simply wrong.
the site included and image. us trademark law separates images and words.