<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">Hohoho Paul. Your sardonic sense of humour hasn’t transmogrified to sarcasm yet! We the royals believe so.</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:38 AM, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Sorry for the «we»… it’s an agreed Swiss position…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regarding the rationale: the edits intend to suggest a text that addresses the concerns expressed by Greg (see all the
exchange below).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 26. November 2018 16:35<br>
<b>An:</b> Cancio Jorge BAKOM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WG: Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks Jorge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I know you didn’t want there to be any discussion on the list, but I really don’t understand what your edits mean or are meant to accomplish. Can you please clarify?
I’m not asking to thwart the changes – I just want to understand them. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Also, when you say “we would be in a position to accept” can you let us know who the “we” is? Is “we” the GAC or Switzerland or you individually (if individually,
don’t feel bad – I use the royal “we” quite a bit. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Wingdings;color:black">J</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">)? Thanks much.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 26, 2018 1:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WG: Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear all<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Please find attached on pages 38 and 39 in track changes the amendments we would be in a position to accept regarding this issue (principle of specialty
and fair use).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’m sharing this only with a view to a constructive solution and would really urge not to start endless email exchanges onlist.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Hope this helps<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Kindly<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Jorge
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 20. November 2018 18:20<br>
<b>An:</b> Cancio Jorge BAKOM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jorge,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your email. I think this is a statement of fact and not a point of view. I searched “principle of specialty” to reveal how it would be most commonly cited and used. That does not seem absurd, but the results I got points
out the shortcomings in using this term.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Obviously, a search adding “trademark” generates a different result; but that was not the point. I also did searches with “trademark” (and “U.S. trademark” and “Canada trademark”), to find U.S. or Canadian trademark. The results indicate
that the term is essentially unknown and unused in connection with trademarks in the US and Canada.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is not a “national lens” issue; it’s a matter of being broadly understood. While the term “principle of specialty” may be unknown to many, the concept is not. The concept is very much a part of U.S. and Canadian trademark law. I
was just trying to suggest some plainer English, instead of using a term of art understood only in certain jurisdictions. I’m glad you agree that keeping the term but adding an explanatory footnote is a reasonable compromise.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On your other point, however, it looks like you may be confused on the law: “descriptive fair use” and “descriptiveness” are two different concepts in trademark law. “Descriptive fair use” allows a trademarked word or phrase to be used
by a third party in a <u>non-trademark sense</u>, as a descriptor of the third party’s goods or services or their geographic origin. <b>But this has nothing to do with whether the third party can use the other party’s trademark as their trademark.</b> This
would be governed by “likelihood of confusion” analysis (a part of which is the concept you call the “principle of specialty”).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Descriptiveness, on the other hand, goes to the question of whether the first party’s mark is legally protected as a mark. A term that is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is not protected as a mark, and another party can use that
term <u>as their mark</u>, either for different goods and services or even for the same goods and services (although it will be seen as descriptive there, too).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, because you say descriptive fair use “allows the same term to be used
<b>by</b> different trademarks.” I’m not sure what you mean by “by”. It is true that a third party can use a trademark term as in its descriptive sense any way they want, including
<b>in</b> their trademark <u>as a descriptor</u> (e.g., if Empire raises big red chickens, they can use the phrase Empire Big Red Chickens and “Big Red” Chicken Gravy can’t stop them.). But descriptive fair use doesn’t cover use <b>in
</b>a trademark <u>in a trademark sense</u> (e.g., if Empire’s chickens were not big and red, but they were still “Big Red” brand chickens).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Either way, “descriptive fair use” has nothing to do with the ability of two parties to register the same trademark in the same jurisdiction, which is the sole subject of the paragraph in the Report. That is what I am trying to fix here
by removing the reference to trademark fair use. Again, this is a point of fact, and has nothing to with “perspective.” I don’t see why this is a problem. I should think we all have the same interest in putting out a factually accurate report.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:54 AM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Greg and all<br>
I made my points and I stand by them - I‘ll leave it to staff and co-leads to decide whether in such paras we should let others to rewrite others points of view.<br>
Btw: looking up „principle of specialty trademark“ (just using Google autocomplete) would spare us your absurd extradition law reference
<span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif">🙄</span> and the Wipo doc I referenced is, well, a good source worlwide if you put down some national lens down...<br>
As to descriptive use: it is a limit and allows the same term to be used by different trademarks and limits the scope of term monopolization eg of geographic provenience descriptors - that’s why it makes sense here „from this perspective“...<br>
You may add your own footnote or additional para if you like, but please let’s make progress<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
Von: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
Datum: 19. November 2018 um 22:09:25 MEZ<br>
Bis: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>>,
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>,
<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a> <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>><br>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<br>
<br>
<br>
Jorge,<br>
<br>
I’ll skip over your procedural arguments, since debating assumptions or interpretations about the unwritten rules of commenting is tedious. I will just say that I assumed that once the window for comments closed, any remaining comments would be discussed,
so your opportunity to comment was not a matter of luck. Turning to substance, which is a more useful discussion:<br>
<br>
Following your advice I did a search using Google for “principle of specialty”. Here’s the first result: “A principle of international law that is included in most extradition treaties, whereby a person who is extradited to a country to stand trial for certain
criminal offenses may be tried only for those offenses and not for any other pre-extradition offenses.” Most of the next 30 results use it this way (and not all are U.S. sources).<br>
<br>
There are a couple of trademark references: the 9th result is the WIPO document, and there are a couple of UK references. We do finally come to a U.S. source using it as a trademark term: an article on “The Confusing Similarity Standard in Mexican Law,” in
“The Trademark Reporter.” I could find no references using it for U.S. or Canadian trademark law, regardless of the nationality of the source.<br>
<br>
The point is that this term will have no meaning to lay readers and no meaning to a significant portion of knowledgeable readers. I’ve been practicing trademark law in the U.S. for over 30 years (dealing with trademark laws around the world), and I have rarely,
if ever, seen the term.<br>
<br>
I’ll note that I was flexible when the term “bright line rule” was questioned. I think this is a reasonable request; it did not change the meaning and I’m surprised you object. I’m just trying to make our report understood by as many as possible. If you are
insistent the term be used, then we need a footnote to explain it. According to the Swissberg law firm’s website “Swiss trademark law is based on the principle of specialty,” so you are comfortable with it. But we can’t assume general familiarity with the
term.<br>
<br>
As for “trademark fair use” I agree the term is widely known (though it may not be widely understood). Nonetheless, the Report is using the term incorrectly. Trademark fair use does not “allow the use [of] the same word for a trademark even within the same
jurisdiction.”<br>
<br>
I don’t know if you looked at the Wikipedia page you cited, but it completely supports my objection — it discusses descriptive fair use (using a trademark term in a generic sense) and nominative fair use (using a trademark to refer to a trademarked good or
service that can’t readily be identified another way — like a band). It may be a “limit” to trademark law, but it has nothing to do with the point at hand — whether two brand owners can use the same mark on unrelated goods and services in the same jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
I hope that you will accept these neutral and well-meant changes, so we can stop wasting each other’s time, which is for me at least as scarce for you (unless the Swiss have devalued the minute) and in some sense more valuable, since I bill by the hour (and
can’t bill anyone for this).<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 2:53 AM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>> wrote:<br>
Dear Greg and all<br>
<br>
Just very quickly:<br>
<br>
<br>
• The wording you aim at amending has been in the working paper for months: “From this perspective, under trademark law, the principles of specialty and of trademark "fair use" apply, according to which it is possible for two brands to register trademarks
for the same term in the same jurisdiction, as long as no confusion or infringement pursuant to the law arises.”<br>
<br>
• It expresses the point of view of “some” (“from this perspective”)<br>
<br>
• Your comment came in the last minute – so it was perceived as a last minute attempt to change the point of view of others, without a good chance for those others to intervene (unless, as in my case, they were lucky to have the time to look into these
comments).<br>
<br>
• The “principle of specialty” is widely recognized in trademark law –btw we are not talking only about one specific jurisdiction here- (just google it and you’ll find as first result the reference the WIPO definition: “The right of the owner of a
mark to prevent third parties from using that mark in trade is subject to the principle of specialty, according to which this right can only be asserted with regard to those goods and services in respect of which the trademark is protected, usually as a result
of registration.30.03.2007” SCT/17/3: Relation of Established Trademark Principles to ... – WIPO
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fedocs%2Fmdocs%2Fsct%2Fen%2Fsct_17%2Fsct_17_3.doc&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C1d21103879564525186d08d6537217f2%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C1%7C636788147837095972&sdata=fIdQjaSLwEN%2Bsk%2FdiiA7swy6S4Ef1Vw17d8cG%2FTX2%2Bo%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_17/sct_17_3.doc</a><<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wipo.int%2Fedocs%2Fmdocs%2Fsct%2Fen%2Fsct_17%2Fsct_17_3.doc&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C1d21103879564525186d08d6537217f2%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C1%7C636788147837105980&sdata=HexGK1HNc8HXFgnzNISz0PDJh6zMi%2F76RtgC2U5oYgk%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_17/sct_17_3.doc</a>><br>
<br>
• Also “fair use” is widely known as a limit to trademark law – which is what the wording in the report is explaining (see
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C1d21103879564525186d08d6537217f2%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636788147837105980&sdata=xBY%2F2Z5FihKuE6PDjsfzGEBSWyUCUMeF4kAslWb32mU%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)</a>). Hence, next to the principle of specialty, it allows to use the same word for a trademark even within the same jurisdiction.<br>
I hope that we leave it by this and avoid wasting each other’s time, which at least for me is a quite scarce resource…<br>
Regards<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
Von: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>><br>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. November 2018 23:54<br>
An: Marita Moll <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>>><br>
Cc: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>>>; Emily Barabas <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>>>;
Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>><br>
<br>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<br>
<br>
With regard to the objection to my comments (numbered as 69 and 70), the reasons for these were explained in detail in my submission. Unfortunately, those were left out of the document circulated by staff. It is really incorrect and unfortunate to characterize
these changes as ones intended to delete anyone's point of view.<br>
<br>
These comments were on the following text, and suggested that the first text highlighted below should be deleted and the second be added:<br>
<br>
TLDs are a unique resource. Some Work Track members have contrasted this<br>
33 unique quality of TLDs with the use of names under trademark law. From this<br>
34 perspective, under trademark law, the principles of specialty and of trademark<br>
35 "fair use" apply, according to which it is possible for two brands to register<br>
36 trademarks for the same term in the same jurisdiction [for unrelated goods and services], as long as no confusion or<br>
37 infringement pursuant to the law arises.<br>
<br>
I'll explain again and hopefully more clearly. First the term "principle of specialty" is not one generally used in discussing US trademark law (perhaps like "bright line rule" it is a term that does not travel well). I had to look it up to see what it meant.
We need to use terms that will be commonly understood, at least by those with some knowledge of the subject matter. The added language "for unrelated goods and services" really covers the same concept. Furthermore the added language corrects what is otherwise
an ambiguous (and arguably, misleading) description of basic trademark laws (i.e., without that language, it leaves the impression that the same mark can be registered and used for related goods and services in the same country). In other words, this was
merely a clarifying change.<br>
<br>
The second change (deleting the reference to "trademark 'fair use'") was also intended to be corrective, not to remove anyone's opinion. That is because this is an incorrect use of the term "trademark fair use." Trademark fair use is not in any way related
to the right to use a trademark for different goods and services than an existing trademark. Trademark fair use refers to either "descriptive" fair use -- the right to call an apple an apple, regardless of Apple's trademark rights -- or to "nominative" fair
use -- the right to call the Spice Girls the Spice Girls (e.g., in a ticket giveaway), even though Spice Girls is a trademark.<br>
<br>
If these changes (or any others I suggested) are objectionable, they should be responded to in substance, rather than by broad (mis)characterization and/or by introducing ex post facto rules about what changes can be made when, and which seem intended to dismiss
changes without reaching their merits.<br>
<br>
I'm as interested in closure as anyone, but sending out a report with incorrect assertions will delay closure in the long run.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 9:03 AM Marita Moll <<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Yes, I think this is a valid comment. We could find ourselves right back at the beginning.<br>
<br>
Marita<br>
<br>
On 11/14/2018 8:48 AM, <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
Dear Emily and all<br>
Thanks very much for the new text. I will not be able to make the call (am in Paris at the IGF), but let me share the general observation that there should not be changes in the last minute which try to change the balance of the text as had been prepared by
staff, especially changes which try to convey a different reflection of the discussions already had in the work track.<br>
I also would like to urge that we avoid last minute changes intended to change the description of what was said or argued by “some”. Deleting or rephrasing of others’ opinions by others with a different opinion should be refrained from. For instance, I feel
that the comments 69 and 70 from Greg go in that direction – I would urge not to do that – otherwise others may feel the need to edit the opinions expressed by others, which at this stage is really meaningless.<br>
Kindly<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org</a>>
Im Auftrag von Emily Barabas<br>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. November 2018 14:26<br>
An: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
Thanks to those who shared additional comments and suggestions on the list. Please see the attached updated version of the document which we will use on the call shortly. Comments highlighted in purple are those added since last week’s call. Those in yellow
require further discussion and will be the focus of the call today.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
From: Emily Barabas <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>>><br>
Date: Tuesday, 13 November 2018 at 12:54<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>><br>
Subject: Proposed Agenda and Reminder to Submit Input on Initial Report - Work Track 5 meeting - 14 November 2018<br>
<br>
Dear Work Track 5 members,<br>
<br>
This is a reminder that the deadline to provide input on the draft Initial Report is Friday 16 November. If you would like the group to discuss you input on the call tomorrow, please make sure to send your input to the mailing list prior to the call.<br>
<br>
Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow’s call:<br>
<br>
1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates<br>
2. Recommendation 11 - non-capital city names<br>
3. Review new comments, clarifications, and edits to the draft Initial Report<br>
4. AOB<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Emily Barabas <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>>><br>
Date: Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 20:09<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>>><br>
Subject: Initial Report next steps and deadline for input - Friday 16 November<br>
<br>
Dear Work Track 5 members,<br>
<br>
Thanks to all who have submitted comments about the draft Initial Report on the mailing list and those who were able to join the call yesterday to go through some of the comments received that may require further discussion. Please find attached a revised draft
of the report incorporating feedback received on the call. As a reminder, the target date for publishing the Initial Report is 20 November. In view of this timeline, the Work Track leadership team kindly requests that members submit any final feedback on the
Initial Report no later than Friday 16 November. You can either insert comments in a copy of the attached document and send to the WT5 mailing list or send your comments in the body of an email to the WT5 list, identifying the page and line number of the text
you are referencing.<br>
<br>
Below you will find some of the questions/concerns raised in comments by members that still may need additional input. The leadership team is sending these on the mailing list to make sure that all members have a chance to provide feedback, even if they were
not able to join the call.<br>
• On page 17 (recommendations section of the report) two WT members commented that they felt it was premature to include any preliminary recommendation in the Initial Report on the topic of non-capital city names. Do you support removing preliminary recommendation
11 on treatment of non-capital city names? Or do you favor leaving the recommendation in the report, noting that it can be changed for the Final Report based on community input and further discussion in the Work Track? Regardless of whether the recommendation
is kept or removed, there are two questions for community input on this topic (e10 and e11) included in the Initial Report, so the group can expect additional community feedback through public comment to support further deliberations.<br>
• On page 40 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Once a gTLD is registered with an intended use that is geographic in nature, all other variations and translations of this
term are unconditionally available for registration.” Another Work Track member requested clarification on the meaning of “unconditionally available” and also requested clarification about which entities might be able to apply for these variations and translations
under the proposal. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?<br>
• On page 41 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Applicants for geographic names must apply to the GAC to receive permission to submit an application for the string.” Another
Work Track member requested clarification about the scope and meaning of this proposal, including how it would interact with other requirements. Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?<br>
• On page 76 (deliberations section of the report) the text mentions the following proposal put forward by a Work Track member: “Apply a "bright-line" rule that any geographic term that is not explicitly and expressly protected is unprotected. No objection
or non-consent can be used to stop its registration.” Other Work Track members raised concern that the term “bright line” rule may not be widely used and understood, and further requested clarification on the scope of this rule and the basis for protection.
Can the author of this proposal provide any additional clarification?<br>
Note that Work Track members are welcome to comment on any other parts of the draft in addition to the items listed above.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Emily<br>
<br>
<br>
Emily Barabas | Policy Manager<br>
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org" target="_blank">emily.barabas@icann.org</a>> | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C1d21103879564525186d08d6537217f2%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636788147837115988&sdata=4exPH7nF8UHITW%2FjuNc5wkzZPvqWDOXAHiqF5O4dPTs%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-newgtld-wg-wt5&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C1d21103879564525186d08d6537217f2%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636788147837126001&sdata=aU3opeZjO43pgpw%2BrsE8d5zF42NwoZWZyDOpebfXTgs%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray">
<hr size="3" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray">The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your
receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other
taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>