Mifid redux? Esma insists on LEIs for repo collateral

European regulators are turning to an old trick to boost the adoption of legal entity identifiers (LEIs) – a ‘barcode for finance’, designed to improve …
European regulators are turning to an old trick to boost the adoption of legal entity identifiers (LEIs) – a ‘barcode for finance’, designed to improve …

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare Market 2019: Quantitative Research By Qualcomm …

… Quantitative Research By Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. , SecuGen Corporation, Uniphore, lumenvox, VoiceVault Voice Authentication and other.

New Research Study Report: Data Bridge Market research presents the all-inclusive data Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare Market Modality Type (Unimodal and Multimodal), Access Control and Authentication (Single-Factor Authentication and Multi-Factor authentication), Model (Public Cloud, Private Cloud and Hybrid Cloud), Access Channel (Online, In-Person, Tablet, IoS and Android), Application (Pharmacy Dispensing, Care Provider Authentication, Medical Record Security & Data Center Security, Patient Identification and Tracking, Home/Remote Patient Access, Narcotic Security, Counter Insurance Frauds and Others), Country (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Turkey, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and Rest of Europe)–Industry Trends and Forecast to 2026

Europe biometric as a service in healthcare market is expected to reach register a healthy CAGR of 23.3% in the forecast period of 2019 to 2026.

Key Players Mentioned in the Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare Market Research Report: Gemalto NV, agnitio, BioAXS Co. Ltd., Cenmetrix (Pvt) Ltd. , FUJITSU, HID Global Corporation, Hitachi, Ltd. , Integrated Biometrics, Innovatrics, IRITECH, INC., LaserLock International, Inc., M2SYS Technology, MorphoTrust USA, Nuance Communications, Inc., Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. , SecuGen Corporation, Uniphore, lumenvox, VoiceVault Voice Authentication and other.

Apply here for the free sample copy of the report: https://databridgemarketresearch.com/request-a-sample/?dbmr=europe-biometric-as-a-service-in-healthcare-market


On the basis of deployment model, the market is segmented into public cloud, private cloud and hybrid cloud. In 2018, Hybrid market is likely to dominate market with 48.9% shares and is estimated to reach USD 3,536.44 million by 2026. It is growing at the highest CAGR of 24.3% in the forecast period.

  • In May 2018, Integrated Biometrics, LLC (U.S.) announced that PKS Services have become a primary distributor for FBI-certified products in Europe. Due to this, it will help them in generating sales opportunities for Integrated Biometrics regionally along with better technical assistance.

On the basis of access channel, the market is segmented into online, in-person, tablet, IoS and android. In 2018, online market is likely to dominate market with 40.5% shares and is estimated to reach USD 3,027.91 million by 2026. It is growing at the highest CAGR of 24.9% in the forecast period.

  • In August 2018, IRITECH, INC. (U.S) has won the 2017 North American Frost & Sullivan Award for New Product Innovation because of which company will be recognized for its specialty in iris biometrics technology. Thus, this will help in generating more customer base.

On the basis of application, the market is segmented into pharmacy dispensing, care provider authentication, medical record security & data center security, patient identification and tracking, home/remote patient access, narcotic security, counter insurance frauds and others. In 2018, Medical record security and data center security market is likely to dominate market with 23.2% shares and is estimated to reach USD 1,715.23 million by 2025. It is growing at the highest CAGR of 24.7% in the forecast period.

  • In May 2015, SayPay Technologies, Inc. (U.S.) has signed the partnership with VoiceVault Inc. (U.S) to deliver online and mobile payment solutions. This will leads to increase in sales performance of the company in around 40 countries.

To get TOC for Full Analysis of Report @ https://databridgemarketresearch.com/toc/?dbmr=europe-biometric-as-a-service-in-healthcare-market

Research Methodology:

Primary Respondents: OEMs, Manufacturers, Engineers, Industrial Professionals.

Industry Participants: CEO’s, V.P.’s, Marketing/Product Managers, Market Intelligence Managers and, National Sales Managers

Premium Insights of the report

  • This Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare report provides information related to production, Market growth, competitive landscape and market trends
  • Each player profiled in the Research report is studied on the basis of the SWOT analysis, their products, value, capacity and other vital factors
  • The report provides accurate data and insights related to the global market which include CAGR, value, volume and revenue
  • The statistical information provided in the report serves as a powerful tool to get a clear and quick understanding of the Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare market progress in the past few and coming years.

Request Customization of Report @ https://databridgemarketresearch.com/checkout/buy/enterprise/europe-biometric-as-a-service-in-healthcare-market


This Europe Biometric as a Service in Healthcare research report gives the outcome that matters most to the client. The research carried out in this report suggests what is going to be beneficial and how the report will help the business to grow.


Data Bridge Market Research

US: +1 888 387 2818

UK: +44 208 089 1725

Hong Kong: +852 8192 7475

Email: [email protected]

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

An Army prototype smartphone hints at the risks of biometric security

Ziegler is military director at the Emerging Technologies Directorate of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), essentially the information …

FORT MEADE, Md. — Dressed head-to-toe in military fatigues and standing in knee-high grass next to an Army Humvee, Maj. Nikolaus Ziegler held up an unusual smartphone, one equipped with the special security the military wants to deploy in battle.

In a few seconds, the prototype smartphone took a scan of his face, measured the height at which he held the phone and analyzed the past hour of his movements. The phone’s security system decided that he was, indeed, Major Ziegler and unlocked itself.

The smartphone is the Army’s answer to a challenging question: How do you translate the powerful consumer technology of smartphones into something that can be useful and secure on the battlefield?

Ziegler is military director at the Emerging Technologies Directorate of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), essentially the information technology branch of the Department of Defense. He explained that soldiers need something better and more secure than today’s smartphones that rely on passwords and fingerprint sensors. The main issue, he said, is that those soldiers often have to hide their faces, their eyes and their fingers.

Major Nikolaus Ziegler, a military director at the Emerging Technologies Directorate of the Defense Information Systems Agency, helped develop the prototype because consumer-grade phones only have a certain level of security and a hassle to unlock in the battlefield.NBC News

“If I’m in the field, and I’m going on a military operation, I throw my MBC mask on,” Ziegler said, referring to his gas mask. “Now, my facial recognition is taken off that list.”

So his group decided it needed a more flexible way of identifying a soldier.

“There needs to be additional contextual and biometric factors that allow the device to validate who you are,” he said.

The convenience, portability and usability of smartphones has pushed the military to figure out how to integrate them into the battlefield. The trouble until now has been that consumer-grade phones offer only a certain level of security, and they’re a hassle to unlock in the field.

Ziegler’s new prototype meets a particular set of requirements. It allows graduated levels of security depending on a soldier’s clearance; it improves on a simple passcode or thumbprint for security; and it allows a variety of factors to serve as evidence that the phone’s owner is, indeed, holding the device.

With this new technology, which DISA is calling “Assured Identity,” the phone will watch everything it can about its owner in order to constantly confirm that it’s in the right hands.

But the DOD is in a different position than in previous decades, when companies would compete for lucrative contracts to build new weapons and tools to their specifications.

Ziegler said he was part of a group that asked Apple to build a military version of its first iPhone, with additional features to make it more rugged and more secure. The company refused, he said, citing too small a market opportunity.

Even including every active-duty American soldier, the market for such a device is only a couple of million people. So the DOD is at the mercy of a market now dominated by large tech companies selling variations of the same product to tens or hundreds of millions of people. That makes the DoD a comparatively small customer.

In a reversal of roles, the DOD now hopes to essentially sell some of the technology it’s developing to a manufacturer like Google, Samsung or some other company.

The hope is that a company will then mass-produce phones with similar security features, so that the department can buy them at an affordable price for its personnel. The trouble is that a mass-market version of the technology could be less secure — and more intrusive — than what the DOD has in mind.

“Even if the phones are well secured, allowing the vendor to take the data off the device and store it on their servers would be a source of security risk,” said Riana Pfefferkorn, associate director of surveillance and cybersecurity at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “Obviously this data, if held by a private vendor, would be a target for hacking by America’s enemies. Plus, careless security practices could lead to a data breach, or the data could be compromised due to an insider threat, such as an employee selling it without authorization.”

In recent years, biometrics have emerged in consumer electronics as an alternative to passwords. Fingerprints and even now face scans have become routine parts of the day-to-day of millions of people who use Apple and Samsung smartphones.

But that technology has also come with fresh privacy concerns about just what happens to biometric information.

The DOD smartphone takes biometric security to a previously unseen level. It combines everything from the places a person habitually visits and their most common connections to Wi-Fi networks to the calls they regularly make, and then combines that data with biometrics like the patterns of their strides to build a “trust score” that keeps the phone unlocked. Ziegler said that within about 100 yards his phone knows who he is from the rhythm of his gait and which pocket he usually uses to carry it.

If another person grabs the phone and walks off, the distinct pattern of his or her walk would change the trust score in just a few strides.

“It’s continuously checking things on you,” he said, smiling.

Stephen Wallace, a systems innovation scientist at DISA, argued that the system could make life incredibly convenient even if it were only given to active and retired military personnel.

“My father carries around his V.A. card,” he said. “And when he goes to the hospital, he presents his V.A. card. Well, what if we could get to the point where they don’t need that anymore?“

Wallace described a world where biometric factors like a fingerprint and being left-handed, together with the habits of a person’s daily life, don’t just replace passwords, they safeguard every transaction.

The trick, Wallace said, is requiring more security for certain transactions. To allow you to do something high-stakes — like transfer money from a bank account, for instance — Wallace said the phone would need to check multiple factors off the list. A $20 transfer might need only a fingerprint, whereas a $10,000 transfer could require a far greater amount of physical and situational data.

But biometric data, like all digital information, is hackable. Privacy advocates have warned that the faces of people who have posted pictures online are used without permission to train facial recognition programs. When Apple launched its Face ID feature, the company reassured users that any information about a user’s face would stay on the phone — though Reuters found that some developers were able to gain access to facial data. More recently, biometric information from more than 1 million people was found on a publicly accessible database used by a security company.

Wallace said the DISA prototype keeps all of the data on the phone rather than sending it to the cloud, where it might be compromised in a data breach. But that’s the military concept. If “assured identity” were to become a mass-market product, the rules would almost undoubtedly be different, he said.

“Our position going into this was that [the data storage] needs to be done local,” Wallace said. “Because we’ve seen time and time again where, you know, there have been infiltrations and people’s privacy data has been taken. So we really want to be mindful of that.”

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Satisfying the Evidentiary Demands of the UDRP

Failure to establish common law rights also sunk Complainant in Aurora Cannabis Inc., Aurora Marijuana Inc., Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. v.
Gerald M. Levine

It continues to surprise that some counsel in proceedings under the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) are unaware or oblivious of its evidentiary demands, by which I mean they file and certify complaints with insufficient evidence either of their clients’ rights or their claims. Because the UDRP requires conjunctive proof of bad faith registration and bad faith use (as opposed to the disjunctive model of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), it should be ingrained for counsel experienced in the jurisprudence to know they cannot hope to succeed with marks postdating registration of domain names.

Yet, whatever the level of counsel experience with UDRP jurisprudence suing when there is no actionable claim is a recurrent feature on the docket. Examples: Puretalk Holdings, LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA1906001848525 (Forum August 5, 2019) (<pure talk.com>, mark postdating domain name registration by15 years); Art-Four Development Limited v. Tatiana Meadows, D2019-1311 (WIPO July 29, 2019) (<aizel.com>, also postdating by almost 15 years). In Femida a/k/a International Legal Counsels PC v. Reserved for Customers / MustNeed.com, FA1906001847829 (Forum July 25, 2019) the postdating is quite short, but still “Respondent’s domain name was registered before the first use and registration of the Complainant’s mark.”

Claiming cybersquatting against domain names predating marks in commerce is obviously misguided, but challenging domain names with deficient evidence of a mark’s right or a respondent’s bad faith is careless or worse. It is no more sufficient to have a naked right than it would be for complainants to succeed on respondents default. Respondents did not appear in Pure Talk and Art-Four; Complainants failed because it was impossible for them to succeed. The answer to why complainants fail depends in part on complainants linguistic brand choices, and in another part, on failing to marshal proof supporting their claims. For marks composed of dictionary words, descriptive phrases, and short strings of letters, the evidentiary bar is higher because complainants are not alone in the sole magnets for having associations with allegedly infringing names. The bar is higher still for complainants of unregistered marks.

Whereas complainants of registered marks have standing by virtue of their registrations, those with unregistered marks only have standing on proof of secondary meaning antedating registration of the challenged domain name. (Under the ACPA the “mark [must be] distinctive at the time of the registration of the domain name” regardless whether registered or unregistered). Applications awaiting approval by trademark registries are not deemed to qualify as a right; nor are marks registered on the Supplemental Register in the US, although unregistered rights may include trade names and personal names if they are found to be functioning as trademarks. (See earlier essay Do Trade Names Qualify as Trade Marks for Purposes of the UDRP?)

Both ICANN Panels and US courts (and, no doubt, other jurisdictions) insist that proof of secondary meaning “includes evidence as to (1) the length and continuity of a mark’s use, (2) sales, advertising, and promotional activities, (3) expenditures relating to promotion and marketing, (4) unsolicited media coverage, and (5) sales or admission figures.” The Panel in Facele SPA v. Jason Owens, D2019-0140 (WIPO July 28, 2019) (<facele.com>, Complainant represented by counsel) gives a thoughtful discussion of these expectations:

Even if the Complaint had only included details of the Complainant’s pre-2010 sales and advertising figures accompanied by examples of how the mark has been used, that would have been helpful. (Emphasis added).

Since the facts the Panel references should be within a complainant’s knowledge and control, failure of proof, evasiveness, or silence supports an adverse inference that the mark was not used before the registration of the domain name; if it were, the proof would have been submitted (or carelessly omitted).

A good illustration of this deficiency of proof is Empire Engineering LTD v. Liamuiga LLC, FA1906001847862 (Forum July 22, 2019) <empireengineering.com>). In this case, Complainant (represented “internally” presumably by an attorney) had to deal with the descriptive nature of the alleged mark. While the phrase “empire engineering” is hardly striking as an indicator of source, it is certainly capable of functioning as a mark. However, the Panel dismissed the complaint because “Complainant has not provided evidence of secondary meaning with respect to the expression ‘Empire Engineering’“. As in Facele SPA, Complainant (but more particularly its representative) failed to take into account the quality of and demand for proof to establish rights under paragraph 4(a)((i) of the Policy.

Failure to establish common law rights also sunk Complainant in Aurora Cannabis Inc., Aurora Marijuana Inc., Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. v. Byron Smith, D2019-0583 (WIPO July12, 2019) (<auroradrops.com>). The Panel held

If there was indeed common law use of the AURORA DROPS at any relevant time by the Complainants, proof of that use was also deficient. This may be a function of the fact that the marijuana market in Canada was only operational at full scale beginning in October 2018. In any event, the Complainants’ evidence of common law rights has not satisfied the Panel that there was a substantial reputation as of April, 2017, when the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainants’ belated attempt to register AURORA DROPS has only served to muddy the waters.”

The underlying concept of secondary meaning is proving reputation in the marketplace, not now but then. The evidence must be sufficient to show that the mark would have been recognized by consumers as a source of complainant’s goods or services.

The same deficiency is noted in another common law claim, Dakota Access, LLC (c/o Energy Transfer LP) v John Saldis, FA1906001849464 (Forum August 6, 2019) (<dakotaaccess pipeline.com>). Here “Complainant has not adduced any evidence of trademark registration.” While it “contends [it] has used the DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE name in publicity materials, contracts, and filings with state and federal regulatory agencies,” it has not produced them:

The only supporting evidence adduced by Complainant is a presentation deck named “Energy Transfer LP Investor Presentation — June 2019”. It is unclear to the Panel how this presentation deck supports Complainant’s contention. This 45-page presentation deck seems to only have one reference to “Dakota Access Pipeline” in a map, without any elaboration as to the relationship of “Dakota Access Pipeline” with either Dakota Access, LLC or Energy Transfer LP. In addition, while the timing of when a complainant has acquired common law rights in a mark is not relevant for the panel in deciding on this element, the Panel notes that this presentation deck is dated June 2019, which is later than the creation date of the disputed domain name (September 18, 2016).

Even where marks allegedly predate domain name registrations, complainant’s must still anticipate legitimate interests and rights defenses squarely undercutting their claims of cybersquatting. In Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. James Booth, BQDN.com, D2019-1042 (WIPO July 17, 2019) (<rcc.com>) Complainant argued that the three-letter string infringed its unregistered four-letter acronym, “rccl.” This raised a problem as summarized by the three-member Panel:

the Respondent raises a reasonable question regarding whether a four-character mark which is an initialism or acronym can be found to be confusingly similar to a three-character domain name which, as here, shares part of the same character set. The Respondent points out that, if a finding of confusing similarity is made in those circumstances, the logical extension is that all four-character initialisms/ acronyms would be regarded as confusingly similar to all partially corresponding three-character domain names. (Emphasis added).

Interestingly (and unusual), the Panel declined to make a ruling under Paragraphs 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii) and rested its dismissal of the complaint on 4(a)(iii):

The Panel is inclined to favor the Respondent’s case on registration in bad faith [and] accepts that the Respondent more probably than not acquired the disputed domain name due to its value as a short, ubiquitous and memorable three-letter string which would be attractive to a wide variety of existing and potential entrants to the marketplace rather than in a bad faith attempt to target one specific rights owner in the form of the Complainant.

In fact, such findings under either 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii) have been made “in multiple past cases.” For example, the panel noted in Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos CLH SA v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. / Sam Dennis, Investments.org Inc, D2018-0793 (WIPO June 13, 2018) (<clh.com>) that “it is commonly accepted that absent factors to the contrary in a particular dispute [of which there are none offered in this case], trading in domain names is a legitimate activity that has grown into a substantial market over the years.”

The facts in A Mediocre Corporation v. Domain Admin / Domain Registries Foundation, FA190600 1849931 (Forum July 27, 2019) (MORNING SAVE and <morningsafe.com>, Complainant represented by counsel) look like a textbook example of typosquatting, substituting an “f” for a “v” (which on the Qwerty keyboard sits immediately below the “f”). I like Andrew Allemann’s comment on DomainNameWire.com because it suggests an approach which counsel did not pursue and was not taken into account in deciding the case:

There are plenty of Wayback Machine screenshots showing early use of the MorningSave. These could have been included with date stamps to show the [earlier] use.

Although the Panel rejected Complainant’s argument, it more appears the dismissal was based on Complainant’s failure to offer the necessary proof to support its claim. Complainant’s contention based on constructive notice was rejected as not applicable in a UDRP proceeding (counsel should have known this!).

Mr. Allemann may very well be right about Mediocre that counsel could have done better. It applies to other cases of which it could be said that but for the deficiency of proof, the result would have been different if proof had been properly marshaled. For example, in Numerix LLC v. Dagmar Brebock, FA190600 1846731 (Forum July 25, 2019) (NUMEREX and <nurnerix.com> the confusing similarity is with the “rn” which replaces the “m.” It would not be unreasonable to ask, who got it wrong the Panel or Complainant’s counsel? The Panel found that Complainant limited its proof to asserting that “Our domain name Numerix.com has been registered and in use since at least 1998 with corporate formation in 1996.” An astute commentator (Evan Brown this time, udrptracker.com) offered the following “practice tip”:

If you own trademark registrations, be sure to actually plead them in the complaint. This UDRP case should not have been lost on these grounds. Some panels cut no slack, even when there is obvious evidence outside the record.

What Mr. Brown means by “outside the record” is that Panels are not forbidden to do research on the Internet and trademark databases, which it didn’t do hence his wry comment that “some panels cut no slack.” Substituting “rn” for “m” is right out of the squatters handbook: <rnerial.com> for MERIAL, <ernersson.com> for EMERSON, <freernanco.com> for FREEMAN, are some examples, all of them resulting in transfers. There is no indication that Complainant’s counsel in Numerix brought this history of typosquatting practice to the Panel’s attention. (This is probably a good candidate for an ACPA action).

If only for instructional purposes, complainants and their counsel should pay close attention to Panels’ reasoning of what evidence is necessary to satisfy claims of cybersquatting. As I have pointed in earlier essays, complainants only get one shot in a UDRP at proving cybersquatting; there is no such pleading as an “amended complaint” under the UDRP. See UDRP Complaint: Actually, a Motion for Summary Judgment and Words and Descriptive Phrases as Trademarks Registered as Domain Names.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Synaptics appoints Michael Hurlston president and chief executive officer

Hurlston was most recently CEO and a member of the Board of Directors at Finisar Corporation. Prior to Finisar, he served as senior vp and gm of the …

Synaptics has appointed veteran technology executive Michael Hurlston president and chief executive officer effective August 19, 2019, when he is expected to join Synaptics’ Board of Directors.

Hurlston was most recently CEO and a member of the Board of Directors at Finisar Corporation. Prior to Finisar, he served as senior vp and gm of the Mobile Connectivity Products/Wireless Communications and Connectivity Division at Broadcom Limited, as well as other senior leadership positions in sales, marketing and general management. Hurlston has also held senior marketing and engineering positions at Oren Semiconductor, Inc., Avasem, Integrated Circuit Systems, Micro Power Systems, Exar and IC Works.

“After a comprehensive search, we selected Michael because of his strong track record of growing large businesses to achieve consistent profitable growth and market penetration,” says Nelson Chan, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Synaptics. “He also brings extensive strategy and technology experience in our investment focus areas. We believe that Michael will be a great cultural fit for the company and look forward to his leadership in driving the transformation and next wave of growth for Synaptics.”

The company began an executive search process after Richard Bergman resigned as CEO in May.

“I am honored to be given the opportunity to lead Synaptics at this pivotal milestone in the company’s history,” says Hurlston. “I’m really looking forward to leveraging my experience in leading the company’s transformation strategy and drive shareholder value.”

Synaptics will report financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal 2019 on Thursday.

Article Topics

appointments | biometrics | Synaptics

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts