[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action items from TM Claims Sub Team call on Friday; plus updated Google Doc

Wed May 3 20:59:57 UTC 2017

I can support this.

[ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]

J. Scott Evans

408.536.5336 (tel)

345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544

Director, Associate General Counsel

408.709.6162 (cell)

San Jose, CA, 95110, USA

Adobe. Make It an Experience.

jsevans at adobe.com

www.adobe.com

From: <gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-trademark" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink at amazon.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:47 PM
To: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham at expedia.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action items from TM Claims Sub Team call on Friday; plus updated Google Doc

I looked at Mary’s updated text on the new, cleaner, Google doc and then looked at what Michael put together.  I think there is a lot of redundancy in the questions and it looks like Michael kept some of that in, trying to be true to the original.  I was not so kind.  I hacked it all up.  See the redline (Michael’s draft plus my version) attached. Michael, we’ll talk shortly – I’d love to get your feedback on the questions.

All- Do you think the group was hesitant to change too much?

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Graham (ELCA)
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 2:35 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action items from TM Claims Sub Team call on Friday; plus updated Google Doc

I attach a first attempt at resetting questions relating to the Trademark Claims Service into logic trees. There appear to be three General questions and several proposed specific questions – though there may be others we might consider including.

Michael R.

From: gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:38 PM
To: gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] Action items from TM Claims Sub Team call on Friday; plus updated Google Doc

Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,

Please find below the Action Items from the last Sub Team call on Friday 28 April. To facilitate your review of where the Sub Team is on its discussions, staff has attempted to create the simplified table that was requested. We’ve continued to use Google Docs and what you’ll see is the current text under discussion by the Sub Team. For your convenience, we have also reproduced the current text in this email following the Action Items and Discussion Notes.

Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q/edit?usp=sharing<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F13u5h6Wh6QUqW0vzT5q0zCTEmjMQ8_iCat6ZehLHQC7Q%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfa25cab342ca4dc05ccf08d49265ba31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294413745107352&sdata=B%2B30c6a5RASApyXx1nsu%2F4vqQysGIX95hM%2FfnXFsqxI%3D&reserved=0>

Here is the original Google Doc that we have been using to date: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1GEWeolyHlj91BXHrO5wG_Q7iv6a8tmjx8wRABppfu40%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cfa25cab342ca4dc05ccf08d49265ba31%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636294413745117360&sdata=8Kdf5glUv%2BtGsAxK8%2BwxGoVvVMjJbsTKl30cloYNAUg%3D&reserved=0> (for reference regarding the original context and text of the initial Charter questions, prior Sub Team discussion and comments, and the General and Overarching Charter Questions)

Action Items:
•              When distributing the final list of questions to the full WG, staff to include notes on intent of TM Claims Service (as reflected in the IRT and STI reports)
•              For Q3, general question: change "the" to "its" in referring to intended effect
•              Move new question suggested by Kathy into the Q3 specific questions list, possibly refining language to tie it to any chilling effects and/or unintended consequences that are identified Simplify table (take out the additional context and prior discussions) - need a clearer visual depiction Michael to work with staff on simplified table before next week (Michael to start draft of possible decision tree diagram)
•              Michael to consider some possible initial definitions for Q3

Next meeting - Friday 5 May 1600 UTC

Discussion Notes:

·         Q3 - park question of meaning/definition of "intended effect" for now; Sub Team may prepare a definition or explanation when the list of questions goes back to the full Working Group

·         (Phil Corwin): Generally speaking, I think the intended effect of the TM Claims Notice was to deter intentionally infringing (as in cybersquatting) domain registrations. And the main unintended effect is to deter and cause abandonment of substantial numbers of registrations that were neither intended to infringe on TM rights or that would have constituted bad faith registration and use if completed.

CURRENT TEXT UNDER DISCUSSION:

1.      General Question:
Is the mandatory 90-day Trademark Claims period having its intended effect? If not, or if there are unintended consequences, what should be adjusted, added or eliminated?

Specific Questions:

·         Does having a mandatory pre-registration Trademark Claims Notice create a “chilling effect” on good faith registrations?

·         If so, would the perceived “chilling effect” be reduced or minimized if the Claims period was of a shorter duration?

·         If so, what would be the appropriate shorter period?

·         Does having a mandatory Claims service (as structured currently) fail in its goal of deterring bad faith registrations?

·         If so, would lengthening the duration of the claims service (or making it permanent) have beneficial effect?

·         Is the Trademark Claims Notice to users intimidating or hard to understand? Does it meet the intended purpose of informing potential registrants of the limitations of trademark holders rights? If the notice is inadequate, how can we improve it?

2.      Should the Trademark Claims period be extended beyond ninety (90) days?

3.      Should the Trademark Claims period continue to be uniform for all types of gTLDs in subsequent rounds?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170503/409d27b4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1576 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20170503/409d27b4/image001-0001.gif>