<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<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:"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:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose">Fine – forget about booking.com. But
</a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">companies that register "their" vertical as gTLD; then simply lock it away and never use it is only your opinion of bad, mine. And you cannot say for sure that there is no benefit to the internet user because one
company’s use of a closed generic TLD could provide significant benefits to internet users – it depends on the use. But even if they don’t use it at all there is no harm to the DNS. It also does not lock up the term as there are an infinite number of other
TLDs that include the term and second level domains that can be registered and used. Your view of “bad” is based solely on your opinion that every person has an a priori right to register second levels in every TLD and any harm is purely speculative.</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">Marc H. Trachtenberg</span></b></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
Shareholder </span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black">Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>
Tel 312.456.1020 <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black">Mobile 773.677.3305<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span><a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:blue">trac@gtlaw.com</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black">
| </span></span><a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:#003359">www.gtlaw.com</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="185" height="30" style="width:1.927in;height:.3125in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D65548.94FE5330" alt="Greenberg Traurig"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alexander Schubert<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds BOOKING.COM Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bad ones are if companies register "their" vertical as gTLD; then simply lock it away and never use it. There is zero benefit for the Internet user in such behavior.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also concur with Rubens that literally nobody on the global scale cares at all about the booking.com case. It's virtually irrelevant outside the U.S. And seemingly the decision clearly SUPPORTS the notion that the average generic-keyword
+ gTLD is too generic to serve as a TM protecting goods and services described by the keyword - the booking.com case was rather an exception - because their "mark" (name) is so well known. If you would register a brandnew generic domain and tried to trademark
it protecting the goods and services described by the keyword: USPTO would deny. You could go all the way to SCOTUS: they would confirm. At least in my opinion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why exactly are we wasting so much time on the booking.com decision - how is it related to our tasks? I don't see the slightest connection. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alexander <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;color:#364F67">Sent from my Samsung device<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>>
<br>
Date: 7/8/20 21:48 (GMT+02:00) <br>
To: <a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a> <br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds BOOKING.COM Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration
<br>
<br>
Ruben,<br>
<br>
What are the risks of the "bad" ones? We still have not heard this yet?<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Marc H.Trachtenberg<br>
Shareholder<br>
Greenberg Traurig, LLP<br>
77 West Wacker Drive<br>
Chicago, IL 60601<br>
Office (312) 456-1020<br>
Mobile (773) 677-3305<br>
<br>
On Jul 8, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
While the legal discussion is interesting, and please keep it going, I need to comment that the discussion of closed generics is not much if they are legal or not, but if they are helpful or not for the domain identifiers system.<br>
<br>
It's also not about the existence of a possible helpful use case, but whether those possibly useful ones outweighs the risks of the bad ones.<br>
<br>
<br>
Rubens<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8 Jul 2020, at 15:37, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Ann,<br>
<br>
While it is true that the registry (technically through registrars) would be selling multiple second level domain name registrations to thousands of different business sources of goods and services, the critical aspect is that every one of those second level
domains would emanate from a single source – the registry. There is no other place to get a second level in the “generic” TLD except from the registry. And the registry can have quality control on each of the domains in the form of registration and/or use
requirements. A trademark is a source indicator and in this context, the fact that second level sits atop the “generic” TLD indicates that it emanates from a single source the registry. And it doesn’t matter if the consuming public knows who the registry
operator is. Trademark law is clear that the trademark must simply communicate that the good or service emanates from a single source, not identify the specific source. Accordingly, in that sense the “generic” TLD is not generic at all and is like
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh-S6UNnyQ$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh-S6UNnyQ$
</a>>. The businesses using the second level might be using the second level in connection with their business but that does not take away from the potential source indicating function of the TLD in the same way that if Burger King uses Sony TVs to display
its branded BK menu it does not take away from the source indicating function of the SONY mark on the TV.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Marc H. Trachtenberg<br>
Shareholder<br>
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601<br>
Tel 312.456.1020<br>
Mobile 773.677.3305<br>
<a href="mailto:trac@gtlaw.com%3cmailto:trac@gtlaw.com">trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com</a>> |
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.gtlaw.com*3chttp:/www.gtlaw.com/__;JQ!!DUT_TFPxUQ!T2A_kVyFLdbUgCkFvAR9oQWBqANV2ILgfW_AdBYAMyelgOC0dkkayVwqoBRU8uQwh5UXwA$">http://www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<image001.jpg><br>
<br>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:59 AM<br>
To: McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com">PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>>>;
<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh-S6UNnyQ$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh-S6UNnyQ$
</a>> Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
*EXTERNAL TO GT*<br>
Paul,<br>
Your reference to the <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> ruling as something that “shreds the notion that generic terms somehow cause competitive harm” is surprising to me.<br>
<br>
The US Supreme Court Ruling concluded, based on evidence below, that <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> was NOT generic. It’s a secondary meaning case in which the evidence below clearly demonstrated that the consuming public associates the
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> site with a SINGLE SOURCE indicator of certain services and related reputation in the marketplace. In so holding, the court rejected the USPTO practice of always denying registration to a generic term in combination with .com. Putting aside the question
of having US law on secondary meaning govern ICANN policy, I don’t quite understand why you maintain that a generic TLD with multiple second level domain registrations could somehow become a “single source” indicator of quality and service. In other words,
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> is a particular source of booking services that provides certain guarantees, payment policies, reputation for quality etc. on which consumers rely.<br>
<br>
Since you make references to a “pre-trademark”, you seem to be saying that a closed generic TLD could eventually operate as a trademark for a “single source” indicator after acquiring secondary meaning in the marketplace, even though the registry would be selling
multiple second level domain name registrations to thousands of different business sources of goods and services. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? Is this about full quality control by the Registry of goods and services being offered under a
particular Closed Generic TLD and is that the basis of your argument for the Public Interest being served?<br>
<br>
For those who may not have time to read the full decision, I have tried to pull out the “nut” of the basis for the holding in the text pasted below. It’s definitely a secondary meaning case and the ruling was that
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> is NOT generic but is rather a source-indicating trademark via acquired distinctiveness. The Supreme Court affirmed the 4th Circuit and the lower federal district court findings in this regard. The text describing those findings is pasted below.<br>
<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
“Relying in significant part on <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
</a>>’s new evidence of consumer perception, the District Court concluded that “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$ ></a>”—unlike “booking”—is not generic. The “consuming public,” the court found, “primarily understands that
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$
</a>> does not refer to a genus, rather it is descriptive of services involving ‘booking’ available at that domain name.”<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Book-ing.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_1QzQPRA$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Book-ing.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_1QzQPRA$%20%3e%20B.V.%20v.%20Matal,%20278%20F.%20Supp.%203d%20891,%20918%20(2017).%20Having%20determined%20that%20“https:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Book-ing.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_1QzQPRA$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Book-ing.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_1QzQPRA$ > B.V. v. Matal, 278 F. Supp. 3d 891, 918 (2017). Having determined that “https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$ ></a>” is descriptive, the District Court additionally found that the term has acquired secondary meaning as to hotel-reservation
services. For those services, the District Court therefore concluded, <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
</a>>’s marks meet the distinctiveness requirement for registration.<br>
The PTO appealed only the District Court’s determination that “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$ ></a>” is not generic. Finding no error in the District Court’s assessment of how consumers perceived the term “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3e,">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$ >,</a>” the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the court of first instance’s judgment. In so ruling, the appeals
court rejected the PTO’s contention that the combination of “.com” with a generic term like “booking” “is necessarily generic.” 915 F. 3d 171, 184 (2019).”<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.<br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 6:31 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin%3cmailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">
alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$
</a>> Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
[EXTERNAL]<br>
________________________________<br>
Thanks Alexander. I am not making that argument and so won’t address your variant of an argument I’m not making.<br>
<br>
The point of the <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> decision is that it shreds the arguments that <. + generic term> TLDs will somehow cause a competitive harm. Shreds.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert<br>
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 10:48 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$
</a>> Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
Paul,<br>
<br>
I don’t understand: Are you arguing that because <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
</a>> won the right to deny third parties using the letter combination “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$ ></a>” in connotation with hotel booking services an applicant for a generic string based gTLD could deny public access to
the new gTLD namespace?<br>
<br>
Question:<br>
In your opinion; if the domain registration for <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
</a>> would expire, could <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
</a>> deny the new registrant from offering hotel booking services on a website to which the domain routes – based on their “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$%20%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$ ></a>” TM (once they have it)?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Alexander<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.<br>
Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2020 18:13<br>
To: Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com%3cmailto:justine.chew@gmail.com">justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>>; Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br%3cmailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$
</a>> Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
Thanks Justine. Understood. And to be clear, SCOTUS doesn’t address our exact debate (although we are mentioned in the one-man dissent but in that dissent Justice Breyer specifically mentions how new gTLD registries are building brand awareness for their
brands, e.g. .club – so again helpful to those who believe <.+generic term> TLDs should remain available as they were in the AGB2012 Guidebook), it just dispatched the fear-of-not-being-able-to-use-the-term argument upon which the <anti-.+ generic term> have
built their case and generally takes a big swing at per se rules. Lucky timing, since it gives this WG another chance to actually make Policy as the Board asked us to do rather than just saying “we don’t know.”<br>
<br>
I understand why those whose position is essentially vitiated by this SCOTUS decision want to push hard to get the topic removed from discussion now that this case it out. Even so, hopefully the Co-chairs will give this the time it was promised.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com%3cmailto:justine.chew@gmail.com">justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 11:44 PM<br>
To: Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br%3cmailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>>>; McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com">PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$%20">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$
</a>> Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
Paul, I wasn't suggesting we dismiss what SCOTUS said, but as we well know, there could be room to distinguish court decisions. But I will read the SCOTUS judgment, thanks to you.<br>
<br>
Rubens, sorry to not be helpful here - I don't know - but it's not inconceivable to me that a (supreme) court of a different jurisdiction may choose to hold a different view.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Justine<br>
---<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 11:53, Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br%3cmailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Is there a position on generic trademarks in general from WIPO ?<br>
<br>
<br>
Rubens<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2 Jul 2020, at 00:05, Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com%3cmailto:justine.chew@gmail.com">justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Paul, thanks for the pdf.<br>
<br>
I can't help but to wonder what might happen if a (supreme) court of another jurisdiction were to hold a different view.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Justine<br>
---<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 10:49, McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com">PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
Thanks Justine. I’ve attached a PDF for you. I’m not familiar with the contents of the other commentary article you mention, but I think the actual opinion by Ginsburg makes it clear that the per se rule is quite abolished at the USPTO.<br>
<br>
The Justice writes:<br>
<br>
“The PTO’s principal concern is that trademark protection for a term like “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” would hinder competitors. But the PTO does not assert that others seeking to offer online hotel-reservation services need
to call their services “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e.">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$>.</a>” Rather, the PTO fears that trademark protection for “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” could exclude or inhibit competitors from using the term “booking” or adopting domain names like “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ebooking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_owHxgeA$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ebooking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDxlo9Go0$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://ebooking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_owHxgeA$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/ebooking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDxlo9Go0$></a>” or “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/hotel-booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh9ZY6rsnw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/hotel-booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDcbI2aE4$%3e.">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://hotel-booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh9ZY6rsnw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/hotel-booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDcbI2aE4$>.</a>” Brief for Petitioners 27–28. The PTO’s objection, therefore, is not to exclusive use of “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” as a mark, but to undue control over similar language, i.e., “booking,” that others should remain free to use.<br>
That concern attends any descriptive mark. Responsive to it, trademark law hems in the scope of such marks short of denying trademark protection altogether. Notably, a competitor’s use does not infringe a mark unless it is likely to confuse consumers. See §§1114(1),
1125(a)(1)(A); 4 McCarthy §23:1.50 (collecting state law). In assessing the likelihood of confusion, courts consider the mark’s distinctiveness: “The weaker a mark, the fewer are the junior uses that will trigger a likelihood of consumer confusion.” 2 id.,
§11:76. When a mark incorporates generic or highly descriptive components, consumers are less likely to think that other uses of the common element emanate from the mark’s owner. Ibid. Similarly, “[i]n a ‘crowded’ field of look-alike marks” (e.g., hotel names
including the word “grand”), consumers “may have learned to carefully pick out” one mark from another. Id., §11:85. And even where some consumer confusion exists, the doctrine known as classic fair use, see id., §11:45, protects from liability anyone who
uses a descriptive term, “fairly and in good faith” and “otherwise than as a mark,” merely to describe her own goods. 15 U. S. C. §1115(b)(4); see KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v.Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U. S. 111, 122–123 (2004).<br>
These doctrines guard against the anticompetitive effects the PTO identifies, ensuring that registration of “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” would not yield its holder a monopoly on the term “booking.”
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
concedes that “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” would be a “weak” mark. Tr. of Oral Arg. 66. See also id., at 42–43, 55. The mark is descriptive,
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
recognizes, making it “harder . . . to show a likelihood of confusion.” Id., at 43. Furthermore, because its mark is one of many “similarly worded marks,”
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>accepts
that close variations are unlikely to infringe. Id., at 66. And <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
acknowledges that federal registration of “<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$%20%3chttps:/urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$%3e">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://Booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_w6Vxcvw$
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$></a>” would not prevent competitors from using the word “booking” to describe their own services. Id., at 55.”<br>
<br>
So, those against <.+ generic term> TLDs are going to have to find some other basis to argue that there will be some sort of harm. This leaves the opponents with (1) being against them because they didn’t apply but their competitors did; (2) they are a registrar
that can’t make any money on them; (3) a bias against free speech; (4) a bias against nascent trademarks. None of these are nearly as noble sounding as the fear about competitive harm, but Ginsburg has nicely dispatched that fear. Sure would be nice if the
Co-chairs would allow more time, as initially promised, so that we can develop some policy. This decision by SCOTUS is very instructive and we should take the time to understand it and build guardrails around the <.+ generic term> TLDs instead of just throwing
our hands up and sending nothing the Board instead of the something they asked us for.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Justine Chew <<a href="mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com%3cmailto:justine.chew@gmail.com">justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com</a>>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 8:51 PM<br>
To: McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com">PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>>><br>
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com%3cmailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
Hi Paul,<br>
<br>
The link you offered is one behind a paywall, so not very useful for me as a non-subscriber.<br>
<br>
But I note that Winterfeldt IP Group has also released a client advisory which points to uncertainty and important element(s) not raised in the appeal and therefore not considered by SCOTUS.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Justine<br>
---<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 10:51, McGrady, Paul D. <<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com%3cmailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com">PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
Thanks Anne.<br>
<br>
All, here is the link to the actual decision: <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.law360.com/dockets/download/5efb47347da17405e86713cb?doc_url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.supremecourt.gov*2Fopinions*2F19pdf*2F19-46_8n59.pdf&label=Opinion__;JSUlJSUl!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Y0XaYhQ$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/5efb47347da17405e86713cb?doc_url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.supremecourt.gov*2Fopinions*2F19pdf*2F19-46_8n59.pdf&label=Opinion__;JSUlJSUl!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Y0XaYhQ$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.law360.com/dockets/download/5efb47347da17405e86713cb?doc_url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.supremecourt.gov*2Fopinions*2F19pdf*2F19-46_8n59.pdf&label=Opinion__;JSUlJSUl!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDt-3VfdQ$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.law360.com/dockets/download/5efb47347da17405e86713cb?doc_url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.supremecourt.gov*2Fopinions*2F19pdf*2F19-46_8n59.pdf&label=Opinion__;JSUlJSUl!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDt-3VfdQ$</a>>.
The Supreme Court strikes down the USPTO’s per se rule against allowing trademark registration for generic term + trademark. Justice Ginsburg does a great job of pointing out why people who are worried about a competitor no longer being able to use the generic
word (e.g. claims that there would be a monopoly on such a term) have nothing to fear. It’s a great read. I wish we could get her on one of our calls!<br>
<br>
The same is, of course, true in ICANNland – a so-called closed generic for .hammers would not stop anyone from using “hammers” to identify hammers. And, just like the for the USPTO, a per se rule against them makes no sense. This is, no doubt, why the ICANN
Board deferred the 2012 closed generic applications to the upcoming round and asked us to develop policy to deal with those deferred applications. I remain hopeful, against all nay saying to the contrary, that we can still eek out some policy here as the
Board asked us to do.<br>
<br>
Best to all,<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDX2bgUrg$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDX2bgUrg$</a>>.
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD9Ci8oIc$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD9Ci8oIc$</a>>.<br>
<br>
This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please
notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.<br>
<br>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:12 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Client Alert - Supreme Court Finds <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://BOOKING.COM__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8-dvYJjw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
Non-Generic And Capable Of Federal Trademark Registration<br>
<br>
Dear WG members,<br>
Just in case anyone on the list is wondering about the US Supreme Court decision in the
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$">
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://booking.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_35PoLpw$</a> <<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/booking.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD3QvBsFY$</a>>
trademark case that Paul and I were discussing on the list, please see attached summary. Again, my view is this is a “secondary meaning” case with uncontested evidence that consumers recognized the domain as a source indicator of the owner’s services.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
<br>
Of Counsel<br>
<br>
520.629.4428 office<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com%3cmailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br>
<br>
_____________________________<br>
<br>
<image001.png><br>
<br>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
<br>
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000<br>
<br>
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lrrc.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh9flNlMZA$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lrrc.com__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh9flNlMZA$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lrrc.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD9GBb8qU$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lrrc.com/__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDD9GBb8qU$</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_GB5X6zg$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_GB5X6zg$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDei9uOMA$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDei9uOMA$</a>><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Jw8rL4Q$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Jw8rL4Q$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDe733Kys$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDe733Kys$</a>>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_u1wudYQ$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_u1wudYQ$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDMDvYM_I$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDMDvYM_I$</a>>).
You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_GB5X6zg$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_GB5X6zg$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDei9uOMA$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDei9uOMA$</a>><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Jw8rL4Q$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh8Jw8rL4Q$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDe733Kys$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDe733Kys$</a>>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_u1wudYQ$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!SrcLO0-RwJs650W51SYPEC51CS0IPWgElnlbeSCGOrlavOSpUhWOsOog5z52hh_u1wudYQ$</a>
<<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDMDvYM_I$">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!Wzo-NoIXhLvoKbDIN6Nn7s6jAedq1tu8kIGCdfddt5BrgvsLbd3ChyMOVDDDMDvYM_I$</a>>).
You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<HR>If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.<BR>
</body>
</html>