Tag Archives: World Intellectual Property Organization

ICANN Appoints Additional Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure Provider

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoThe World Intellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO Center”) and ICANN have signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the WIPO Center as a Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP) service provider.

The WIPO Center is the United Nations agency dedicated to the use of intellectual property, and is well known to the Internet community as an established Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provider.

As previously announced, ICANN appointed The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) and The National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) as Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP) service providers. The appointment process is similar to that of appointing UDRP providers in which consideration is given to achieving competitive provisioning and geographical spread of providers.

View the WIPO Center Trademark PDDRP Memorandum of Understanding [PDF, 314 KB]

View the Trademark PDDRP RFP [PDF, 158 KB]

Learn more about the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure [PDF, 181 KB]

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:

LRO Looks DOA by Philip Corwin

Internet Commerce Association logoThe Legal Rights Objection (LRO) mechanism administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on behalf of ICANN is starting to look like the reverse FISA Court of domain name system (DNS) rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) at the top level. In FISA Court, the government always wins – at WIPO, the LRO complainant always loses.

The FISA Court is of course the venue in which the U.S. government requests a surveillance warrant against a suspected foreign intelligence agent and is never denied (well, almost never – since the process started in 1979, 11 requests have been denied out of a total of 33,942  received through the end of 2012[1]). FISA Court proceedings are secret and non-adversarial, with only government lawyers presenting arguments. In contrast, the decisions resulting from LRO proceedings are published, and both complainant and respondent have equal ability to present their arguments. Yet, as of Friday, August 2nd all 28 of the decided LRO complaints, out of a total of 69 filed, resulted in losses for the complainants[2].

The lopsided results arouse suspicions that trademark interests may have been fighting the last war and too intensely focused on potential cybersquatting at the second level (a concern that we believe is overblown due to the low traffic prospects for many new gTLDs). They consequently sought and obtained the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) RPMs – and also proposed other second level remedies such as a Global Protected Marks List (GPML) that ICANN did not grant. Yet they may have failed to adequately consider whether top level protections were sufficient, and in particular whether the threshold standard for successfully prosecuting a LRO was unattainably high.

As Thomas O’Toole observed in an excellent analysis recently posted on Bloomberg BNA’s E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog[3]:

[T]he only surprise the future might hold is the faint prospect that a WIPO panelist might actually rule in favor of a trademark owner…The biggest lesson so far has been that the Legal Rights Objection process is wholly ineffective for trademark owners seeking to knock down proposed domains containing generic strings. In many cases, companies owning marks for terms such as EXPRESS, HOME, VIP, LIMITED, MAIL, TUNES have lost LROs to domain applicants with no intellectual property rights in those terms whatsoever. Pinterest’s failed challenge to Amazon’s proposed .pin domain was particularly ominous for mark owners, because Amazon seems pretty clearly to be moving in on Pinterest’s business…

The reason for this dour outlook can be found in passages from two early LRO rulings: the first one, Right at Home v. Johnson Shareholdings Inc., No. LRO2013-0300 (WIPO, July 3, 2013); and the second, my favorite, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, No. LRO2013-0022 (WIPO, July 9, 2013)…

In Right at Home, panelist Robert A. Badgley offered the first interpretation of key terms in Section 3.5 of ICANN’s New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. The guidebook uses highly qualified language, directing LRO panelists to decide whether the proposed new domain “takes unfair advantage” of the trademark owner’s rights, or “unjustifiably impairs” the value of the mark, or creates an “impermissible likelihood of confusion” between the mark and the proposed domain.

In Badgley’s view, this language creates a very high burden for trademark-based objections…Obviously, it is going to be very difficult for any trademark owner to demonstrate that a proposed domain is so fishy it satisfies the “something untoward … if not to the level of bad faith” standard…

The second opinion, Express LLC v. Sea Sunset LLC, was one of the better opinions (and I am including the federal court stuff that we wade through every day) I have read in a while. Panelist Frederick M. Abbott carefully summarized the arguments on each side (there are good lessons here for attorneys working on the next round of legal rights objections), and the law that he was required to apply to the dispute. When Abbott turned to the reasoning behind his decision to reject Express LCC’s objection to the proposed .express top-level domain, I got that sense that this panelist was a teeny bit irked that ICANN itself had not made the hard policy choices that the LRO had just dropped in his lap. It’s one thing to ask a panelist to transfer a domain name that might have cost the registrant $10 or so; and it’s quite another to ask a panelist to upset an investment of at least a half-million dollars in a new top-level domain. All based on a trademark registration for a generic term, in a single market, issued by a single government entity. Abbott declined to do it…

These two opinions, taken together, look like a terminal diagnosis for trademark owners with rights in generic terms. Right at Home creates a very permissive standard for what constitutes “unfair advantage” by a domain applicant. Express LLC states, almost categorically, that it is “not reasonable” to allow a trademark owner for a generic term to prevent that term from being used as a top-level domain.

O’Toole goes on to speculate that a trademark owner like Express LLC will have equally poor chances of success if it attempts to block others’ use of such hypothetical second level domains as clothing.express, fashion.express, or shoes.express using the traditional UDRP or the new TMC and URS RPMs — because all of them focus on the domain name to the left of the dot and pay no heed to the gTLD to the right – and because Express holds no trademark rights in those hypothetical generic terms on the left side. We largely agree with his analysis, and suspect that this could be the next big trademark protection issue looming on ICANN’s horizon as brands complain about the necessity and cost of registering relevant domains at a gTLD that matches one of its trademarks but is operated by a third party (and, by the way, it’s not clear that a brand like Express would have any special “sunrise” registration priority for potential second level domains along the lines of O’Toole’s speculation). Other questions arise, such as whether Federal Express should have priority rights to, or a potential infringement claim against, federal.express.

Of course, no one was reckless enough to pay a $185,000 gTLD application fee, plus multiple related legal, consulting, and technical costs, to try to “squat’ at the top level on a unique trademark like Google or Microsoft. But when it comes to a dictionary word like Express, unless the applicant was so clueless as to propose its use solely for fashionable clothing, the LRO is essentially useless – and that may be the correct result. Indeed, short of halting the program, it’s not really clear how one can have a generic word TLD program without allowing the addition of top level domains that are identical to someone’s trademark for something; and that alone is not sufficient to prove trademark infringement.

Domain industry observers such as Andrew Allemann have opined that “The LRO is working just fine, thank you”[4], weighing in with this analysis:

The LRO was created to assuage fears that someone would cybersquat on a top level domain…Objections were filed against .VIP, .mail, and .home. Now, you tell me: when you hear these terms, what brand do you think is being cybersquatted?

Many of the objections were filed by competing applicants that engaged in trademark frontrunning by obtaining dubious trademarks for the string. Others, such as the United States Postal Service’s objection to .mail, were based on stretched interpretations of a trademark (and that’s being generous).

Another industry analyst, Kevin Murphy, has just declared that he will no longer report automatically on forthcoming WIPO decisions in LRO cases, stating[5]:

The Legal Rights Objection has, I think, said pretty much everything it’s going to say in this new gTLD application round. I’m feeling pretty confident we can predict that all outstanding LROs will fail.

This prediction is based largely on the fact that the 69 LROs filed in this round all pretty much fall into three categories.

  • Front-running. These are the cases where the objector is an applicant that secured a trademark on its chosen gTLD string, usually with the dot, just in order to game the LRO process…
  • Brand v Brand. The objector may or may not be an applicant too, but both it and the respondent both own legit trademarks on the string in question. WIPO’s LRO panelists have made it clear, most recently yesterday in Merck v Merck (pdf) and Merck v Merck (pdf), that having a famous brand does not give you the right to block somebody else from owning a matching famous brand as a gTLD.
  • Generic trademarks. Cases where an owner of a legit brand that matches a dictionary word files an objection against an applicant for the same string that proposes to use it in its generic sense. See Express v Donuts, for example. Panelists have found that unless there’s some nefarious intent by the applicant, the mandatory second-level rights protection mechanisms new gTLD registries must abide by are sufficient to protect trademark rights.

In short, the LRO may be one of many deterrents to top-level cybersquatting, but has proven itself an essentially useless cash sink if you want to prevent the use of a trademark at the top level.

The impact of this, I believe, will be to give new gTLD consultants another excellent reason to push defensive gTLD applications on big brands in future new gTLD rounds.

We largely agree with Murphy’s analysis. There may well be a few cases in the remaining objections to be adjudicated by WIPO in which the complainant prevails. But we suspect that they will be such unique outliers that they will actually reinforce what an exceedingly narrow remedy the LRO has turned out to be. That limited utility has already led one disgruntled complainant/competing applicant to declare, “Seems the entire WIPO LRO process was set-up to fail by ICANN with the guidelines they gave the Panelists.”[6]

And, as Murphy observes, filing a LRO with WIPO is not inexpensive. Total filing fees for a single objection to a single new gTLD application can range from $10,000 for a single-expert panel, and up to $23,000 for a 3-expert panel[7]. On top of the fees there are of course legal costs for the attorney preparing the complaint and related expenses for amassing documentation. If the LRO continues to be a preordained shutout for complainants then it is unlikely that it will be used very much at all in the second round of gTLD applications unless significant – and undoubtedly controversial – changes are made in the adjudication standard to give complainants a higher probability of prevailing.

As for the other objection procedure available to third parties, the Community Objection[8] administered by the International Centre for Expertise of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), no judgment can yet be rendered on its efficacy because the Center has yet to issue a single decision on the dozens of cases[9] filed with it. However, with standing limited to established institutions associated within a clearly defined community objectors first have to surmount that procedural hurdle, and then make the string substantive  case that there is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. Additionally, complaints were voiced at the recent Public Forum in Durban that ICC fees[10] , which begin at 17,000 Euro but can quickly mount given the 450 Euro hourly rate for expert arbitrators, are not affordable for many community organizations.

Summing up, the LRO may well have been an effective deterrent against applications for unique trademarked terms but has so far been useless in regard to applications for generic word trademarks, regardless of the trademark’s strength and legitimacy. Its lack of general applicability also seems to be setting up a series of second level domain disputes that may well be outside the existing scope of the UDRP, URS, TMC, or other available rights protection and prioritization mechanisms. All of this may lead to further debate within ICANN on the appropriate scope of trademark rights protections– as well as litigation being filed by unsuccessful complainants who refuse to take WIPO’s decision as the final judgment on their claims.

The clear lesson to brand owners of generic word trademarks is this: If and when the second round of new gTLD applications commences, if you wish to own your trademark at the top level of the DNS (or at least stop others from owning it) you had better open your wallet and apply for it. That compulsion toward unwanted defensive registrations is almost sure to generate further controversy amid charges that ICANN has developed a Midas Touch-like mechanism for generating perpetual revenues for application and use fees for the protection of dictionary words.

Of course, the inflow of defensive applications for generic word trademarks could be a mere trickle compared to the potential surge of defensive and offensive applications for non-trademarked generic words if ICANN ultimately spurs the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice to prohibit “closed generic” gTLDs unless they satisfy a high public interest standard. In that scenario, every company of any heft will have to seriously consider gTLD applications for the major language words describing its key activities and products, lest a competitor do so first and lock them away. But that’s an issue falling outside any trademark protection debate and a discussion for another day.

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:

WIPO Misleads Again On 2012 Cybersquatting Statistics

Trademark holders filed a record 2,884 cybersquatting cases covering 5,084 domain names with the WIPO Center in 2012 under procedures based on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). the organisation announced. This represents an increase of 4.5 percent over the record established in 2011.But domain name registrations grew by 12 percent in the year according to Verisign’s latest Domain Name Industry Brief. So while WIPO does not handle dispute resolution for all top level domains, it would be reasonably safe to say disputes over domain names are growing at a slower rate than actual registrations are increasing.It is not to say that cybersquatting is not a serious issue for trademark holders. It obviously is. But WIPO constantly over exaggerates how big a deal the growth in disputes actually is. Plus WIPO added two more, albeit minor, ccTLDs in 2012, namely .TZ (Tanzania) and .PW (Palau).Since the UDRP’s launch in December 1999, WIPO has received over 25,500 UDRP based cases, covering some 47,000 domain names across the TLDs they handle dispute resolution for.In 2012 there were complainants and respondents from 120 countries, ten countries more than the 2011 WIPO caseload. The 2012 caseload was decided by 341 WIPO panellists from 48 countries, with 13 different languages of proceedings, namely (in order of frequency) English, Spanish, Chinese, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Turkish, Korean, Romanian, Italian, Russian, and Czech.Among WIPO cases in 2012, ccTLDs accounted for almost 12 percent of filings, with 67 national domain registries now connected to WIPO domain name dispute resolution services.The top three areas of complainant activity in 2012 were retail, fashion and banking and finance. The caseload featured many well-known names from business as well as public interest sectors. Of the gTLD cases filed with WIPO in 2012, three quarters (74.8%) concerned .com registrations. The increased filings related to fashion and luxury brands reflect in part a growth in the number of cases filed by brand owners alleging counterfeiting via the web pages offered under the disputed domain name.Parties settled around one out of five WIPO cases before reaching panel decision. Applying UDRP jurisprudence, WIPO panels in 2012 found evidence of cybersquatting in 91 percent of all decided cases.”This is a significant number and, as far as [Doug Iseneberg knows], this is the first time that data about settlements has been released by any UDRP service provider,” he wrote on his Isenberg on Domains blog. “It’s an especially important data point at WIPO, which routinely offers partial refunds to complainants in UDRP proceedings terminated by the parties prior to the appointment of a panel.”On applying UDRP jurisprudence, Isenberg writes “this is also an enlightening number, as it seems to indicate that more disputes are ending in favour of trademark owners, which historically have obtained transfers in just over 85 percent of all domain name disputes at WIPO.”

Melbourne IT Warns Brands To Be Aware Of Protection In New gTLDs

A new report from Melbourne IT says brands need to prepare to protect their brands as new generic Top Level Domains are introduced, but that their impact will be minimal compared to the efforts required to protect brands in .com.In the report released this week, 2012 domain dispute trends were analysed and indicate the world’s large brands have their hands full dealing with existing domains like .com.The Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services’ (DBS) report used dispute data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and shows that .com was the domain most recovered from cybersquatters by brands with more than 3,475 domain names, almost triple the number of disputes in all other gTLDs combined. The first full year of operation for the .xxx domain yielded only 16 disputes filed with WIPO.What the Melbourne IT report does not note though is that while complaints to WIPO have increased 4.2 percent, total registrations of domain names in the year to the end of September increased by 12 percent according to Verisign’s latest Domain Name Industry Brief.But what the Melbourne IT report does note is that “there are also multiple ways of getting a domain suspended, cancelled or recovered from a cybersquatter outside of taking a UDRP action. These include private negotiation through ‘Cease & Desist ‘ letters threatening action , website take – down by a service provider or actually paying the squatter off to recover the name.””The domain industry and global brands have been looking for evidence to shed light on the predictions that the arrival of potential new gTLDs such as .web, .home and .sucks will drive cybersquatting to new highs, and the first year of .xxx has been closely watched as an indicator,” said Melbourne IT DBS Executive Vice President, Martin Burke.”Some will be quick to point out that 16 cases show the fears are just hype, but that ignores the fact that around 80,000 trademarks were registered in .xxx to protect brands before the gTLD even went live. What is more compelling is that .com accounts for 68% of WIPO domain disputes, and in our view that percentage is likely to remain high once the new gTLDs arrive, meaning the biggest problem for brands is actually one they are already having to deal with,” he said.”However, we do agree with trademark holders that it is likely cybersquatting cases will occur at the second level of new gTLDs, so it is imperative brands prepare now by considering which trademarks will need to be registered in ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse and developing their domain registration strategy for both protecting and promoting their brands in the new domains.”The Melbourne IT DBS report and news release is available for download from www.melbourneit.info/news-centre/Releases/cybersquatting-report.xml.

WIPO Statistics Show Cybersquatting Decreases… In Proportion To Global Domain Registrations

WIPO have published the total number of cybersquatting cases on their website for 2012. The number, 2879 is higher than any other year, up from 2764 in 2011 and is certain to result in a news release saying how difficult life is for brand owners. The increase equates to approximately 4.2 percent.The number of cases heard though does not relate to the total number of names disputed as one case can cover more than one domain name. In 2011 the 2764 cybersquatting cases covered 4781 domain names.WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organisation) is always a bit disingenuous when it comes to claims relating to cybersquatting, which indeed is a serious issue.So while complaints to Verisign have increased 4.2 percent, total registrations of domain names in the year to the end of September increased by 12 percent according to Verisign’s latest Domain Name Industry Brief.And while Verisign doesn’t hear cybersquatting complaints across all top level domains, it is difficult to know how registrations have increased for the 65 ccTLDs that Verisign hears complaints for as of the end of 2011 as well as a few gTLDs. But even in .com and .net, which have some of the lowest growth rates of the major TLDs, registrations still increased 7.1 percent in the year to the end of September.Plus, as Domain Name Wire has noted, many complaints are ruled invalid and they don’t correlate for all cybersquatting activity.So in about March get ready for a WIPO news release bemoaning how difficult life is, as they did in 2011, for brand owners and how difficult it is to protect their brands online and how cybersquatting is increasing out of proportion!

Differences In Lodging UDRP Complaints With WIPO And NAF

Ever wondered what the difference is in lodging a UDRP complaint with WIPO or NAF? Doug Isenberg says he’s often asked this question and so has set out ten differences when lodging complaints with the two organisations, who handle 97% percent of all complaints.

Isenberg notes the World Intellectual Property Organisation handles 53 percent of the complaints while the National Arbitration Forum handles 44 percent. And he also serves as a panellist for each, as well as for the Czech Arbitration Court, which also is a UDRP service provider.

The ten differences between lodging a complaint with WIPO and NAF deal with allowed length of complaints and responses, fees, handling refunds, supplemental filings, extensions of time, public/bank holidays, time taken to publish decisions, location, staff – languages spoken and number and dealing with precedent.

To read Isenberg’s take on the differences in full, go to:

Legal Information Provider Misleads On Rising Domain Disputes

Never let facts get in the way of a good story. Sweet & Maxwell have gone on the warpath against cybersquatters saying that disputes over cybersquatting are at record numbers. They use the figures put out by the World Intellectual Property Organisation, claiming that WIPO “decided on nearly 3,000 cases in the 12 months to July 2012, the highest figure since 2007,” according to a report in The Guardian.

The legal information provider says disputes adjudicated by WIPO “hit 2,944 in the 12 months to July 2012, a 6 per cent increase on the same month last year,” according to another report in The Independent.

But this is misleading. Domain name registrations are growing at an even faster rate, with total registrations across all TLDs in the year to the end of April 2012 growing by 23 million or 11 percent according to the latest Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief. So on a disputes per domain basis, disputes are actually falling!

Country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) grew even faster, growing by 16.2 percent for the same 12 month period while the .COM and .NET gTLDs grew by 8.1 percent over the same period.

So no matter how you slice and dice this information, to say that cybersquatting has increased is misleading as the total base of all domain names has grown at a far quicker rate.

While not diminishing the concerns that online brand owners have over cybersquatters, and the cost they impose, this needs to be put into some perspective.

Daily Wrap: EU Says ITU Should Not Have More Power, Kiwi Fight Over TLDs, .SA, .EE, .IE Awards And Aeroflot.xxx Dispute

There may be a case for governments having more say in the way the internet is run, EU digital commissioner Neelie Kroes told ZDNet last week, but — even if this were to happen — it would not necessitate giving the ITU more power.

“Of course there are voices saying it would be better with the UN [but] I’m not in favour of the line that, if you have a problem, you can only solve it in a new structure,” Kroes said, adding that it was first worth examining the calls for more government input.

“I still think that the remarks that are made [about giving governments a greater voice] can be included in a solution within the structure of today,” she said. “I’m not aware that that can’t be done, so I’m not willing to [favour] a new structure.”

The creation of the kiwi.nz second level domain will only cause confusion, the applicant for the .KIWI gTLD has said.

Tim Johnson, chief executive of Dot Kiwi Ltd told the New Zealand Herald approving kiwi.nz was not in the best interests of internet users “or in fact the internet in New Zealand”.

“Why would potential registrants want .kiwi.nz when they could have .KIWI?”

SaudiNIC has started a process of updating Whois details for .SA domain names, sending out requests to registrants to check and if necessary update their registrant details.

ICANN’s board of directors is set to approve مليسيا., the Arabic name for Malaysia, at a meeting next week, Domain Incite reported.

The Estonian Internet Foundation announced the public procurement for an audit of the code of the information systems (Domain Registry Software Security Audit) it uses, the organisation announced last week. The bid submission deadline is 10 September 2012.

Over to Ireland and the Irish Internet Association has announced the shortlist for this year’s Dot ie Net Visionary Awards and online voting is now open.

Aeroflot, the Russian airline, has won a dispute lodged with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center over the aeroflot.xxx domain name, however the original registrant does not agree with the ruling and is threatening to appeal.

Daily Wrap: Christians Oppose Sex (gTLDs), .RADIO Conflicts And IOC’s Amazing UDRP Success

One of the four applicants for the .RADIO gTLD, BRS Media, is claiming “ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee has a ‘direct conflict of interest’ over the gTLD,” reports Domain Incite. The issue comes about from another applicant, the European Broadcasting Union, having observer status at the GAC.

It is well known that many Christians publicly oppose anything to do with sex, and this opposition has transferred to the new gTLD arena with Domain Incite reporting “Morality In Media, one of the groups that fought the approval of .xxx for years, has launched a letter-writing campaign against the proposed .sex, .porn and .adult top-level domains.” The complaints, so far anyway, are only against gTLDs ICM Registry has applied for. But there are two .SEX applications – the second is from Internet Marketing Solutions Limited, while there is also an application for .SEXY.

The International Olympic Committee has been busy not only preparing for the London Olympics in a few weeks, but also “for domain owners, and anyone else, who uses a word or phrase that could be construed as being sponsored by the IOC or any of its affiliates,” notes Dan Duval, one of Sedo’s legal staff.

“Decisions dealing with the 2012 Olympics have shown that World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) panels are willing to broaden their interpretation of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) beyond traditional trademark rights, especially when dealing with domains containing any word that could be associated with the Olympics,” continues Duval.

Success by the IOC included “a WIPO panel forced the transfer of mylondon2012.com to the London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG). The owner registered the domain in 2005, the same day the IOC announced the location of the 2012 Summer Olympics.”

The article concludes suggesting registrants “steer clear of domains containing words or combinations of words that could result in the forced transfer of such domains to the IOC, as with a domain as seemingly harmless as mylondon2012.com.”

The Paris based registry start-up Starting Dot submitted five applications for community-based new gTLDs as part of ICANN’s new gTLD programme. The TLDs are .ARCHI, .BIO, .SKI, .DESIGN and .IMMO and will use the registry system of the German based provider KSregistry GmbH as technical framework. Starting Dot is a new registry managing a portfolio of new industry-related TLDs that was founded in Paris in October 2011.

Daily Wrap: WIPO’s Draconian Cybersquatting Desires And Africa’s Paltry gTLD Applications

“Domain name owners who do not respond to cybersquatting complaints could automatically have their domains suspended, if the World Intellectual Property Organization gets its way,” reports Domain Incite.

The story comes from ICANN documents released following a request from the Internet Commerce Association and the documents relate to the Uniform Rapid Suspension policy, which will be binding on all new gTLDs.

In ICANN’s recent generic Top Level Domain expansion, there were four geographic applications from the African continent along with a few applications for brands such as M-Net and MultiChoice, for a “paltry” total of 13 gTLDs in English writes Howard Rybko, CEO of the South African Web design and content management company Syncrony in Tech Central.