DOCSLIB.ORG

Def Enom Reply Memo ISO Its MTD Pl's Compl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Def Enom Reply Memo ISO Its MTD Pl's Compl Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 62 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 704 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AlexandriaAlexandria Division )) GRAHAM SCHREIBER, )) )) Plaintiff, )) )) VSvs. )) CaseCase No. lzl2 1:12 CY CV 00852 (GBL/JT'A) (GBL/JFA) )) LORRAINE LESLEY LESLEY DUNABIN, DUNABIN, et al al.) )) DefendantsDefendants. )) )) DEFENDANT ENOM.INC.'S ENOM, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 17501750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1200 Mclean,McLean, Virginia Virginia 22102 Telephone: (703)749-1300 (703) 749-1300 Facsimile: (703)749-1301 (703) 749-1301 Attorneys for Defendant eNom, Inc. Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 62 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 705 Defendant eNom, Inc. ("eNom"), ("eNom"), through undersigned undersigned counsel, respectfully respectfully submits submits this replyreply memorandum of law law in in support of its its motion to dismiss the the Complaint ("eNom's Motion") filedfiled by Graham Schreiber ("Mr. Schreiber") pursuant to to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(bX1) 12(b)(1) for for lack of subjectsubject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. P. 12(bX5) 12(b)(5) for for insufficient service of process, process, and and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(bX6) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. I.I. INTRODUCTION Mr. Schreiber's Opposition Brief to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Opposition Brief') (Dkt. 55), misstates the the law law and fails fails to to rebut rebut any of salient facts facts meriting dismissal including including the the most poignant: aatrademark trademark dispute between a Canadian citizen and a U.K. resident over trademarktrademark use in in the the U.K. with alleged damages occurring in in the the U.K. and Canada does not not belong in a United States court, because there is no extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. Mr. Schreiber does not have worldwide trademark rights, or any trademark rights in the United States, to the alleged "Landcruise" mark based on his use in Canada, an application to registerregister the the alleged mark on the the principal principal trademark trademark register register in in the the United States, or or a domain name registration. Mr.Mr. Schreiber Schreiber likewise likewise fails to allege critical elements of his other claims. He admits that that his mark is not famous, famous, a necessary necessary element for for his dilution claim. claim. And, And, Mr. Schreiber's Opposition does not dispute that eNom is a registrar, and and therefore therefore is protected protected under the the Safe HarborHarbor provision of the Lanham Act. Moreover, as a registrar, eNom lacks the degree of control overover Dunabin Dunabin that would would be be necessary necessary to to impose impose liability liability for for contributory infringement. Finally, to to the the extent that Mr. Schreiber is arguing that his Complaint contains a contract or fraud fraud claims, those those claims also must must be be dismissed dismissed because because Mr. Schreiber is not not a third party party I1 Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 62 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 706 beneficiary to any contract at issue and does not have standing to bring a breach ofcontract of contract claim, and because because any any alleged fraud fraud claim must be be pled pled with with particularity. For the the foregoing reasons, Mr. Schreiber's claims against eNom fail and his his Complaint Complaint shouldshould be be dismissed with with prejudice. II.II. ARGUMENT ARGUMENT A. The Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Over Over a Trademark Dispute That Does Not Concern A U.S. Trademark InIn his Opposition Brief, Mr. Schreib Schreiber, er, a Canadian citizen, admits that that his his claims claims are based on Lorraine Lorraine Dunabin's Dunabin's registration of the alleged trademark Landcruise in the U.K., the ownership rights to the alleged alleged trademark trademark Landcruise Landcruise in the the U.K., and Ms. Ms. Dunabin's registration registration of the domain name, www.landcruise.uk.com. Opposition Brief at 3; seesee also Complaint at 3-5.. 3-5 .. None of this use is alleged to have occurred in the United States. In addition, Mr. Schreiber seeks relief relief that is is unrelated to trademark use in the United States. Specifrcally, Specifically, Mr. Schreiber has asked the Court to order Ms. Dunabin to release both the U.K. trademark and domain name, and award damages for "TWO (2) YEARS of lost lost access to to the the United Kingdom, for for marketing at travel travel and RV related shows" and "missing "missing the the ultimate ultimate branding opportunity, of touring a 'Landcruise''Landcruise' Branded RV or RV's around London, during the the Summer Olympics of of2012.,,1 20I2."r (Opposition(Opposition Brief at 3,21). t 1Mr.Mr. Schteiber's Schreiber's other alleged damage of 18 months of mental health stress is similarly not recoverablerecoverable under under the the Lanham Lanham Act. See Roth v. Naturally Vitamin Supplements, 1nc.,2007 Inc., 2007 WL 2020114, atat*3 *3 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2007) (finding that the elements of damages under the Lanham Act do not include emotional distress); distress); Condit v. Star Editorial, lnc.,259 Inc., 259 F. Supp. Supp. 2d 1046,1052 1046, 1052 (E.D.(E.D. Cal. 2003) (private (private person asserting asserting an an emotional distress injury injury is is not not protected by the the Lanham Act). )2 Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 62 Filed 12/18/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 707 As set forth forth in IN eNom and AND CentralNic's Motions, the general rule is that Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially. See eNom's Motion (Dkt. 46-1) at 5, CentralNic's Motion (Dkt. 9) at 8-18-11. 1. The Lanham Act only applies to foreign conduct when they have a A significant effect on ON United States commerce. Tire Eng'g & Distribution, LLC v. ShandongShandong Lìnglong Linglong Rubber Co., Co., Ltd.,682F.3d292,310Ltd., 682 F.3d 292,310 (4th Cir.Cir.2012) 2012) (citing Nintendo of Am., Inc. v.v. Aeropower Co., Ltd.,34 Ltd., 34 F.3d246,250F.3d 246,250 (4thCir. (4th Cir. ß9$); 1994)); see also ACG Products, Ltd. v. Gu,2011Gu, 2011 V/L WL 7748354,at*5 7748354, at *5 (V/.D.(W.D. V/is. Wis. Nov. 4,2011) (dismissing (dismissing plaintiff plaintiffs s trademark trademark infringement infringement claim CLAIM for for failure failure to to allegeALLEGE conduct having having an AN effect on ON U.S. U.S. commerce, commerce, thereby depriving the the court ofjurisdiction OF jurisdiction underunder the Lanham Act). Act). A court court must must consider "the citizenship citizenship of OF the defendant, and AND the possibility of OF conflict with trademark trademark rights rights under the the relevant foreign law" since the the general injury contemplated by thethe Act is is harm harm to to a A plaintiff plaintiffs s "trade "trade reputation reputation in IN United United States States markets." NintendoNintendo of Am., Am., Inc.Inc. v. AeropowerAeropower Co., Ltd.,34 Ltd., 34 F.3d F.3d 246,250 246, 250 (4th (4th Cir. Cir. 1994). Although Although courts may may apply the the LanhamLanham Act extraterritorially extraterritorially when when "sales to foreign consumers would jeopardize the income INCOME of OF anAN American American company," company," even even if IF there there is a A failure failure to to cause cause confusion among AMONG U.S. U.S. consumerc, consumers, Tire Eng'g & Disnibution,Distribution, LLC,682 LLC, 682 F.3d at 3 310-11, 10- I l, that is not the case here. InIn this this case, there there is is no NO allegation allegation that that any of OF the the alleged ALLEGED conduct has has any effect on ON U.S. U.S. commerce, let let alone ALONE a A significant effect. Indeed, Indeed, all ALL of ofMr. Mr. Schreiber's allegations focus on ON conductconduct that that occurs occurs outside of OF (and affects affects commerce outside outside of) the United States. Similarly,Similarly, Mr. Mr. Schreiber Schreiber has has not alleged ALLEGED the the possibility ofjeopardizingthe OF jeopardizing the income INCOME of OF a A U.S. company, since since his company company is Canadian. (Complaint (Complaint at Cover Page), or a A U.S. trademark' trademark. AsAs set forth forth below in IN Section B, B, Mr. Schreiber has not alleged ALLEGED any use in IN commerce in IN the UnitedUnited States of OF his alleged ALLEGED Landcruise mark. Accordingly and AND because because the Lanham Act may J^3 Case 1:12-cv-00852-GBL-JFA Document 62 Filed 12/18/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 708 not be applied applied extraterritorially, the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.jurisdiction. B. Mr. Schreiber Fails to State a Claim For Trademark Infringement Or Dilution Under the the Lanham Lanham Act Act or Common Law "Although district courts have a duty to to construepro construe pro se pleadingspleadings liberally, liberally, a a court is is not obliged to ferret ferret through a complaint, complaint, searching searching for for viable viable claims." claims." Jackson v. Michalski,20lIMichalski, 2011 WL3679143,WL 3679143, at *5 (W.D.Va. (W.D. Va. Aug. Aug. 22,2011) 22, 2011) (dismissingpro (dismissing pro se se Lanham Act claims among others). A pro se se plaintiff must allege allege facts facts that that state a cause of action with with enough enough detail detail to illuminateilluminate the the nature nature of the the claim, and courts do not have "to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them." Id.Id.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding and Analyzing Malicious Domain Take-Downs
    Cracking the Wall of Confinement: Understanding and Analyzing Malicious Domain Take-downs Eihal Alowaisheq1,2, Peng Wang1, Sumayah Alrwais2, Xiaojing Liao1, XiaoFeng Wang1, Tasneem Alowaisheq1,2, Xianghang Mi1, Siyuan Tang1, and Baojun Liu3 1Indiana University, Bloomington. fealowais, pw7, xliao, xw7, talowais, xm, [email protected] 2King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. [email protected] 3Tsinghua University, [email protected] Abstract—Take-down operations aim to disrupt cybercrime “clean”, i.e., no longer involved in any malicious activities. involving malicious domains. In the past decade, many successful Challenges in understanding domain take-downs. Although take-down operations have been reported, including those against the Conficker worm, and most recently, against VPNFilter. domain seizures are addressed in ICANN guidelines [55] Although it plays an important role in fighting cybercrime, the and in other public articles [14, 31, 38], there is a lack of domain take-down procedure is still surprisingly opaque. There prominent and comprehensive understanding of the process. seems to be no in-depth understanding about how the take-down In-depth exploration is of critical importance for combating operation works and whether there is due diligence to ensure its cybercrime but is by no means trivial. The domain take-down security and reliability. process is rather opaque and quite complicated. In particular, In this paper, we report the first systematic study on domain it involves several steps (complaint submission, take-down takedown. Our study was made possible via a large collection execution, and release, see SectionII). It also involves multiple of data, including various sinkhole feeds and blacklists, passive parties (authorities, registries, and registrars), and multiple DNS data spanning six years, and historical WHOIS informa- domain management elements (DNS, WHOIS, and registry tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Enom Plug-In Configuration Guide Parallels Plesk Automation Billing Revision 1.1
    eNom Plug-in Configuration Guide Parallels Plesk Automation Billing Revision 1.1 Copyright © 1999-2013 Parallels IP Holdings GmbH and its affiliates. All rights reserved. Parallels IP Holdings GmbH. Vordergasse 59 CH8200 Schaffhausen Switzerland Tel: + 41 526320 411 Fax: + 41 52672 2010 www.parallels.com Copyright © 1999-2013 Parallels IP Holdings GmbH and its affiliates. All rights reserved. This product is protected by United States and international copyright laws. The product’s underlying technology, patents, and trademarks are listed at http://www.parallels.com/trademarks Microsoft, Windows, Windows Server, Windows NT, Windows Vista, and MS-DOS are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. Mac is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. All other marks and names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their respective owners. Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................... 4 Documentation Conventions ............................................................................................. 4 Typographical Conventions ............................................................................................... 4 Feedback .......................................................................................................................... 5 About Domain Registrars .......................................................................................... 6 Domain Registrar Configuration
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Testimony of Paul Stahura Founder of Enom and Chief Strategy Officer for Demand Media House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcom
    Testimony of Paul Stahura Founder of eNom and Chief Strategy Officer for Demand Media House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy Hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition September 23, 2009 Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Coble, Members of the subcommittee: good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am the Founder of eNom, a Bellevue, WA based corporation and domain name registrar. Registrars are companies which are authorized by ICANN to sell domain names like pizza.com or fightcancer.org. eNom is also a provider of websites and email services. eNom is the second largest ICANN accredited domain name registrar, by volume, in the world. It powers over 10 million domain names on its platform and connects Internet users to websites two billion times each day. Our executives have been involved in nearly every aspect of the domain name system from technical, policy and business perspectives at both registries and registrars, and dating back to the early years of Internet commerce before ICANN even existed. eNom’s parent company is Demand Media, a company that develops, promotes, and distributes web content. It is a top-25 web property worldwide in terms of unique visitors to its network of Internet media properties such as eHow.com. Livestrong.com, trails.com, and golflink.com. Demand Media is also the largest distributor of videos to YouTube and is widely considered to be at the forefront of social media. I started eNom in 1997 in my garage in Redmond, Washington with one small computer on an ISDN line, and now the company is one of the largest domain name registrars in the world with hundreds of employees, loads of servers in five locations and millions of domain names under our management.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Top Level Domain Names: Market Development and Allocation Issues
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 13-Jul-2004 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES: MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOCATION ISSUES English - Or. English JT00167437 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL FOREWORD In June 2004 this report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policy (TISP). It was recommended to be made public by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) in July 2004. The report was prepared by Dr. Sam Paltridge and Mr. Masayuki Matsui of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. Copyright OECD, 2004 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. 2 DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)2/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sued Enom and Tucows
    Case 2:17-cv-01310-RSM Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 27 1 HON.___________________ 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 NAMECHEAP, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:17-cv-1310 corporation, 10 COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, 11 v. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 12 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT—SPECIFIC TUCOWS, INC., a Pennsylvania PERFORMANCE 13 corporation; ENOM, INC., a Nevada 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED DUTY OF corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 14 Defendants. 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 17 Plaintiff Namecheap, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Namecheap”), by and through its undersigned 18 attorneys, hereby complains against Defendant Tucows, Inc. (“Tucows”), Defendant eNom, Inc. 19 (“eNom” and collectively with Tucows, “Defendants”), and defendants identified as Does 1 20 through 10 (“Doe Defendants”) as follows: 21 NATURE OF THE ACTION 22 1. Namecheap brings this action against eNom and its successor-in-interest, Tucows, 23 to enforce a contractual obligation to transfer all Namecheap-managed domains on the eNom 24 platform to Namecheap. A true and correct copy of the July 31, 2015 Master Agreement 25 executed by Namecheap, on the one hand, and eNom and United TLD Holding Co., Ltd. trading 26 as Rightside Registry (“Rightside”), on the other hand (the “Master Agreement”) is attached as 27 Exhibit A, with redactions to preserve confidentiality of information not relevant to this dispute. focal PLLC COMPLAINT 900 1st Avenue S., Suite 201 CASE NO. _______________ - 1 Seattle, WA 98134 Tel (206) 529-4827 Fax (206) 260-3966 Case 2:17-cv-01310-RSM Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 27 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Terms of Service
    Domain Registration/Domain Transfer/Domain Renewal Contract TERMS OF SERVICE This contract is between Enter.Net, Inc., located at 815 N 12th Street, Allentown PA 18102, ("Enter.Net") and you, Enter.Net’s customer, ("Customer" or "you" or "domain registrant" or "registrant") and is effective when accepted by Enter.Net, Inc. You are ordering a new domain name (domain registration - domain name means a name that identifies the internet address for your service), or transferring or renewing an existing domain name as stated on your Application or invoice. Enter.Net, Inc. may accept or reject your order for any reason. Such reason(s) may include, but are not limited to, your request for registration of a prohibited or questionable domain name. Enter.Net will register your domain name/names with Enom ("domain registrar" or "registrar" - registrar means an organization that manages internet domain names) or the registrar that Enter.Net is using at the time which you enter into this contract. The length of this contract is the period of time that a domain name is registered for, which is currently either a 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year period. You will select one of these time periods. Our Services: Enter.Net, Inc. is a reseller of domain names. This means that Enter.Net is authorized to register domain names on behalf of you through a registrar. Your domain registration will take place once all of the following has been completed: 1. Enter.Net. receives and accepts this Contract and your domain registration application, renewal and/or transfer application.
    [Show full text]
  • Hosting Controller 7C Reseller Guide
    Reseller Manuals HOSTING CONTROLLER 7C RESELLER GUIDE. © Hosting Controller 1998 - 2007 Reseller Manuals INTRODUCTION ............................................... 7 WHAT IS HC7..................................................................................................................7 HC7 FEATURES AT A GLANCE ..........................................................................................7 HC7 SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS ................................................................................8 GENERAL ................................................... 8 USER MANAGER ......................................................................................................................9 SEARCHING A USER........................................................................................................9 VIEWING DETAILS OF YOUR USERS ...............................................................................9 ADDING A NEW USER ...................................................................................................10 EDITING THE ACCOUNT OF A USER...............................................................................12 EDITING THE PROFILE OF A PARTICULAR USER ...........................................................13 VIEWING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF YOUR USERS ...........................................................13 EDITING THE BILLING PROFILE OF A USER..................................................................14 HOW TO AUTO LOG A USER'S PANEL ............................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Centralnic Group
    THIS DOCUMENT IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. If you are in any doubt about the contents of this document, you should consult your stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant or other independent professional adviser who specialises in advising on the acquisition of shares and other securities and is duly authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (“FSMA”), if you are a resident in the United Kingdom or, if you are not a resident in the United Kingdom, from another appropriately authorised independent financial adviser. If you have sold or transferred all of your Existing Ordinary Shares in CentralNic Group Plc, (the “Company”) please send this document as soon as possible to the purchaser or transferee or to the stockbroker, bank or other agent through whom the sale or transfer was effected, for transmission to the purchaser or transferee. If you have sold part only of your holding of Existing Ordinary Shares in the Company, you should retain this document. Application has been made for the entire issued and to be issued share capital of the Company, to be admitted to trading on AIM, a market operated by the London Stock Exchange plc. It is expected that Admission will become effective, and dealings in the Ordinary Shares will commence on 2 September 2013. The Existing Ordinary Shares are not dealt on any other recognised investment exchange and no application has been or is being made for the Ordinary Shares to be admitted to any such exchange. AIM is a market designed primarily for emerging or smaller companies to which a higher investment risk tends to be attached than to larger or more established companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Phishing Survey: Period July - Trends and Domain December 2011 Name Use in 2H2011
    Global Phishing Survey: Period July - Trends and Domain December 2011 Name Use in 2H2011 Unifying the Global Response To Cybercrime An Published April 2012 APWG Industry An APWG Industry Advisory Advisory1 http://www.apwg.org ● [email protected] PMB 246, 405 Waltham Street, Lexington MA USA 02421 Published April 26, 2012 Authors: Greg Aaron, Afilias <gaaron at afilias.info> and Rod Rasmussen, Internet Identity <rod.rasmussen at internetidentity.com> Research, Analysis Support, and Graphics: Aaron Routt, Internet Identity Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 3 BASIC STATISTICS ................................................................................................................ 3 SHIFTING TARGETS .............................................................................................................. 5 PHISHING BY UPTIME ......................................................................................................... 8 PREVALENCE OF PHISHING BY TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN (TLD) ..................................... 10 COMPROMISED DOMAINS VS. MALICIOUS REGISTRATIONS ................................ 12 REGISTRARS USED FOR MALICIOUS DOMAIN REGISTRATIONS ............................. 13 USE OF SUBDOMAIN SERVICES FOR PHISHING ......................................................... 14 SHARED VIRTUAL
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Crawford Interview Transcript in PDF Format
    DomainSherpa.com: The Domain Name Authority CentralNic's Path to Growth in the New Gold Rush - With Ben Crawford Watch the full video at: http://www.domainsherpa.com/ben-crawford-centralnic-interview/ When the Gold Rush happened in the mid-1800s in California, it is an often- stated saying that few people got rich, except the people who sold the pickaxes and the shovels. The analogy can be made to the domain name industry. Want to find out who is positioned well for the next Gold Rush, and how you might be able to benefit? Stay tuned. I have three short sponsor messages before we get into today's show. First, if you have a great domain name and nothing to show when people visit, you're missing out on potential advertising revenue, leads, and partnership opportunities. NicheWebsites.com can build you a site quickly with a price option to suit any need -- but as their tagline says, they don't just build websites, they build businesses. Second, if you're buying or selling a domain name or portfolio and you want an estimate of it's value, Estibot.com is the place to go. Just like you'd visit Zillow.com to get an estimate of a house value, Estibot.com provides key information about the most important statistics so you can make an informed decision based on data. Finally, DNX.com is a domain name exchange that uses a reverse auction platform to provide fair market prices for quality domain names that are manually filtered by an experienced broker.
    [Show full text]
  • GDPR Webinar Q & A
    GDPR Webinar Q & A We had a great turnout for our GDPR webinar, and attendees asked many intelligent and insightful questions about the regulation and our implementation of its requirements. Since we could not answer all the questions in the two webinar sessions, we wanted to share the responses here for everyone. Below you will find the Q&A; we hope you find it helpful as you work through your own GDPR compliance efforts. If you were unable to attend the webinar in person, we’ve posted it on our blog for you to watch when convenient for you. General GDPR Questions Q: Compliance sounds as simple as gaining consent from clients. If their consent has been given, then I’m covered under the GDPR, right? A: It’s not that simple, in part because there are clearly defined limitations around what constitutes legitimate consent, all of which are outlined in our Consent blog post. Furthermore, the GDPR’s requirements go beyond consent to include things like data minimization, secure processing and storage of data, and more. I can say that from the domain services perspective, we’ve got things covered. This compliance will be achieved through a combination of contract-based and consent-based data processing and data minimization. If you are collecting and storing personal data for your own purposes, beyond what is required by us, we recommend that you talk to a lawyer who is familiar with the GDPR to fully assess the risk that you’re taking by not updating your own processes to comply with the new law.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Receiveo Postal Pate Commission
    RECEIVEO BEFORE THE POSTAL PATE COMMISSION 6:.< 20 4 15 PEI ‘99 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001 POSTALEATE COHHIXICH OFFlCEOFTtii SECRFTARY I COMPLAINT ON POST E.C.S. Docket No. C99-1 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE RESPONSES TO UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INTERROGATORIES UPS/USPS3(B-C), 4,11,15-17,27-28,30-31,43 46(A), 47(A-E) AND 49 (August 20,1999) In accordance with P.O. Ruling No. C99-119 and the discussion of the participants at the prehearing conference held on August 10, 1999, the United States Postal Service hereby provides compelled responses to the following interrogatories of United Parcel Service: UPS/USPS-3(b-c), 4, 15-17, 27-28, 30-31, and 43. A response to interrogatory UPS/USPS-3(a) was filed on July 20. The Postal Service requested that it be permitted to file the response to interrogatory UPS/USPS-2 under protective conditions proposed by the Postal Service in this docket. Tr. 1116-17. UPS opposed this request, Tr. 1118-19, and this issue remains outstanding. The Presiding Officer took under advisement matters relating to interrogatory UPSIUSPS-44. Tr. l/26-27. In addition, the Presiding Officer requested that UPS file an amendment to interrogatory UPSIUSPS-41. Tr. 1139. UPS withdrew interrogatory UPS/USPS-20(a) without prejudice. Tr. 1120. In the United States Postal Service Answer in Opposition to Motion of United Parcel Service to Compel United States Postal Service to Answer Interrogatories UPS/USPS46(A), 47-49, filed on August 13, the Postal Service stated that it would provide responses to interrogatories UPS/USPS46(a), 47(a-e), and 49; accordingly, responses to these interrogatories are provided as well.
    [Show full text]