<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><p style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">Good evening:</p><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Following a chat exchange during a recent call,, I have reviewed the <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-specification-13-31jul17-en.pdf" class="">Specification
13 .BRAND TLD</a> provisions, dated 31 July 2017, *</div><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">For present purposes I
shall limit my comments to section 9. Definitions :</p>
<ol type="i" start="50" class=""><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">9.3 (i) The header
refers to “a registered trademark valid under applicable law …”
from which one might infer that it refers to ANY registered
trademark. In which case, it would beg the question <i class="">quid
</i>identical trademark strings registered in different
jurisdictions and activities?<br class=""><br class="">I believe that the PDP and WT5
have yet to take fully on board that a gTLD confers a global on line
monopoly whereas in all other contexts, trademarks and geographical
names do not. Thus a .BRAND TLD not only creates additional rights
for the Registry, over and above those provided for by the original
trademark, but also denies other trademark rights holders from using
the same string on-line as a .brand<br class=""><br class="">An analogous issue has
arisen in connection with Geographical names.<br class=""><br class="">9.3 ( i) b.
The language is rather open ended: “… business in connection
with the offering… claimed in the trademark registration;” might
be open to quite broad interpretations.<br class=""><br class=""> 9.3 (iii) “the TLD
is not a Generic String”. This is very welcome. I have argued,
with others, <i class="">ab</i> <i class="">initio</i> in WT5 that geographical names
are not Generic. I am glad to see that there is an approved
precedent.<br class=""><br class="">9.5 (iv) Again, the language “…reasonably
related to any of the goods and services identified … “ is
rather open ended.<br class=""><br class="">How has this been implemented by .brands
that have already been delegated?</p></ol><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">Thankyou for your interest in
this matter</p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">Christopher Wilkinson</p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class=""><br class="">
</p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class="">*
<a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-specification-13-31jul17-en.pdf" class="">https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-specification-13-31jul17-en.pdf</a></p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class=""><br class="">
</p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class=""><br class="">
</p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in" class=""><br class="">
</p></div><br class=""></div></body></html>