[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public comment status for our Initial Report

[Paul Tattersfield]

I believe The GAC’s comments on standing are easily refuted.



There is nowhere in the UDRP policy that requires the registration of a
trademark or service mark.

6ter simply evidences Governmental & IGO marks in the same way the
registration of trademarks simply evidences the existence of marks of the
underlying goods and services.

In order to have their mark infringed an IGO has to offer a service i.e. be
known by that mark, this is sufficient under UDRP.

The WIPO comments are far more troubling and in light of the seriousness of
the matter I intend to make a filing to the public comment proceeding.

Best regards,


Paul.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:

> Phil,
>
> The following was in the GAC comments:
>
> "Working Group Recommendation #4 (jurisdictional immunity), which suggests
> a form of workaround, is incompatible with the position conveyed by the
> Legal Counsels of IGOs which was provided to the Working Group at its
> request “
>
> I do not recall ever seeing such a position in writing and do not recall
> one being given orally.  Do you?  If so can you please share it with me?
>
> Also, I find it odd that the author states that the GAC cannot form a
> consensus as to whether 6Ter satisfies the standing requirement of the UDRP
> (1st Element).  I was unaware of this previously.  Nevertheless their
> failure to reach consensus does not move me to alter our position.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <
> psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Date: Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM
> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>, Mary
> Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public comment status for our Initial
> Report
>
> FYI, while the co-chairs have not made a final decision we may well hold a
> WG meeting the last week of March to start detailed review and discussion
> of the comments already filed by then.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
> 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
> 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" --- Branch Rickey
> *From:* mary.wong at icann.org
> *Sent:* March 13, 2017 5:57 PM
> *To:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public comment status for our Initial
> Report
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Although we are not planning to go into a detailed review of all the
> public comments submitted to date at our ICANN58 Working Group session this
> Wednesday, you may wish to note that a number of comments have already come
> in. The most recent filing was from the Governmental Advisory Committee
> (GAC), which was posted yesterday: https://forum.icann.org/lists/
> comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/docxQl32KXGyH1.docx. The
> full list of comments and commenters so far can be viewed here:
> https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-
> initial-20jan17/.
>
>
>
> Staff are compiling the comments as they come in into a tabular format,
> for easier review by the group. We will try to circulate an initial version
> of this tool as soon as we can.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary and Steve
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing
> list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
> listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170314/44d48103/attachment.html>