<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear WG members,</div><div><br></div><div>Please find attached the IGOs’ response to the WG’s questions that had been sent to the small group of IGOs who have been engaged in discussing issues concerning IGO protections (including the recommendations from the GNSO’s previous PDP on the topic) with the Board’s New gTLD Program Committee, the GAC and the GNSO Council.</div><div><br></div><div>You will note that the IGOs’ explanation of the level and nature of protection under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention comports with what was discussed on our last WG call, i.e. that protection under 6ter is more prohibitory in nature and does not necessarily depend on an IGO’s having acquired a national trademark registration in its name and/or acronym. Rather, as we have noted since, the implementation by states of Article 6ter means that third parties are prohibited from registering as trademarks (or elements thereof) IGO names, acronyms, flags, armorial bearings and so on, that suggest a connection between them and the IGO in question. While IGOs may go further and proceed to register its name and acronym as a trademark in various national jurisdictions, that would in many cases constitute additional protections beyond those conferred by Article 6ter.</div><div><br></div><div>(To recap the last WG discussions, we have seen that countries such as the United States and Australia implement their 6ter obligations by treating IGO names and acronyms which have been properly notified to each state by WIPO as particular types of marks, e.g. by assigning specific serial/sequence numbers to them and by requiring that a trademark examiner refuse a third party registration on grounds within the scope of 6ter, such as falsely suggesting a connection with the IGO.)</div><div><br></div><div>In light of the IGO response and the WG’s current discussions, staff will consult with Petter and Phil as to how best to approach our work in the lead-up to Singapore, where it is expected that the progress made by our WG may be on the agenda for discussions between the GNSO and the GAC.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks and cheers</div><div>Mary</div><div><div><br></div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Mary Wong</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Senior Policy Director</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Telephone: +1 603 574 4892</font></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Email: mary.wong@icann.org</font></font></div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>