<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Thank you George,</div><div><br></div><div>I do want to clarify something. There are only two ways an IGO could be faced with the issue of "Mutual Jurisdiction" and a threat of loss of immunity:</div><div><br></div><div>1. IGO files UDRPS and respondent files legal action during or following the UDRP.</div><div><br></div><div>2. A complainant files against an IGO (the IGO being the respondent) and the IGO initiates litigation. This would be a very rare situation.</div><div><br></div><div>The most likely is #1. In that case it is the IGO who initiated the proceeding to protect a commercially used intangible right. The only issues I see are:</div><div><br></div><div> A. Does the IGO have immunity as concerns commercial use of a mark and/or enforcement of its trademark rights? I believe the prevailing authority is no and the research will bear this out.</div><div><br></div><div> B. If the response to "A" is no then are we willing to create a system granting the, immunity? I am completely against doing so.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Paul Keating</span></div><div><br>On 11 Mar 2015, at 9:14 pm, George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Hi folks,</span><br><span></span><br><span>To followup on our meeting today, I did some checking in the online</span><br><span>PACER database of US court cases, to help determine whether the "myth"</span><br><span>that IGOs never waive immunity from national court processes was true.</span><br><span></span><br><span>PACER allows one to search by the "nature of the suit", so I limited</span><br><span>my searches to category 840 (trademarks). After trying various names</span><br><span>of parties, I found 2 different cases that are relevant.</span><br><span></span><br><span>In 1994, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development</span><br><span>(i.e. The World Bank) filed suit in Delaware against "World Bank</span><br><span>Limited" and won a default judgment.</span><br><span></span><br><span>In 1995, the United Nations Children's Fund (i.e. UNICEF) filed suit</span><br><span>in the Southern District of New York against "Art '95", and the matter</span><br><span>concluded with a consent judgment.</span><br><span></span><br><span>PDFs of the dockets for both cases are attached (the underlying</span><br><span>complaints/responses weren't available online, presumably because of</span><br><span>the age of the cases).</span><br><span></span><br><span>I think these 2 examples help to shatter the myth, given that the IGOs</span><br><span>actually *brought* the cases to the courts, as plaintiffs! Why could</span><br><span>they not do the same in a domain name dispute?</span><br><span></span><br><span>This goes to the entire purpose of this working group. The "problem"</span><br><span>that IGOs claimed to have was the lack of a curative mechanism for</span><br><span>alleged infringements of their names and acronyms by others. If the</span><br><span>UDRP didn't exist, it's clear that their only alternative would be via</span><br><span>the courts. The fact that IGOs have brought trademark cases to the</span><br><span>courts on multiple occasions demonstrates that as a viable option,</span><br><span>just like it is for any other complainant.</span><br><span></span><br><span>The existence of the UDRP is not a replacement for the courts. It</span><br><span>gives complainants an *additional* option. No one forces complainants</span><br><span>to file a UDRP -- they could have instead filed in court (where they'd</span><br><span>be subject to the relevant court jurisdiction).</span><br><span></span><br><span>IGOs have said they can't use the UDRP -- we've already shown examples</span><br><span>of IGOs filing UDRPs. Presumably they wanted to use the UDRP, to avoid</span><br><span>having to go to court, where they'd be subject to the court's</span><br><span>jurisdiction thus conflicting with their claimed immunity. Well, now</span><br><span>we have cases where they've gone to court!</span><br><span></span><br><span>In conclusion, these cases help illustrate that IGOs should be treated</span><br><span>the same as everybody else, and that no "special" rules need to be</span><br><span>created for them.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Sincerely,</span><br><span></span><br><span>George Kirikos</span><br><span>416-588-0269</span><br><span><a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a></span><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><WorldBank-v-WorldBankLimited-docket.pdf></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><UnitedNationsChildrensFund-v-Art95-docket.pdf></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>