[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 06 February 2019 1700 UTC

Thu Feb 7 19:46:50 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 06 February 2019 (17:00-18:00 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-06+Sub+team+for+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

By Tuesday, 12 February at 18:00 UTC (see separate email for details), the Trademark Claims Sub Team is tasked to: 
Review the Analysis Group Independent Review of TMCH Services and AG’s responses to follow up questions in the ‘Source’ tab of the analysis tool; provide input in the Google Docs set up for ALL Trademark Claims Charter Questions. (note: the first 38 pages of the AG report should be the focus, and the rest of the report are appendices; AG’s responses should be fast to read through)
Provide further input on the source documents assigned for previous weeks, if any, in the Google Docs set up for all Trademark Claims Charter Questions.

Instructions: 
When providing input, please note the source name and page/slide number of the previously collected data.
By the deadline, the Google Docs will be locked to prevent further editing and their PDFs will be circulated to the Sub Team. Staff will accept and indicate the new input in the Google Doc for the ease of viewing. 

Source Documents:

Newly Assigned
Analysis Group Independent Review of TMCH Services: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Analysis%20Group%20Revised%20TMCH%20Report%20-%20March%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1490349029000&api=v2
AG Response to follow up questions - June 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002043.html
AG Response to follow up questions - July 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170727/06a0c33e/ResponsesfromAGtoFollowUpQuestions-27July2017-0001.pdf

Previously Assigned 
Registry Operator Responses to Initial Survey from TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Registry%20Responses%20to%20TMCH%20Data%20Sub%20Team%20-%2013%20Dec.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485897782000&api=v2
Deloitte responses to initial questions from TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Deloitte%20responses%20to%20TMCH%20Data%20Gathering%20Sub%20Team%20questions%20-%20Jan%202017.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1485897782000&api=v2
Deloitte TMCH Report: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170311/e28abe0e/ICANNTMCHreport_Feb2017-0001.pdf
Response to follow up questions - Apr 2017:  https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170414/4591dc7c/DeloitteResponsestoFollowUpQuestions-0001.pdf  

Google Docs:
Claims Charter Question 1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIdqJc89FkVStHuceMBeShWVWD0JRD185FY5ZUjySLo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
Claims Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P2mckW_nLHiyffxLhT6h2NCWfpjwAcXQ4zjG1-c2sac/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10R4qNC_2zEoLs-0C8_yylxavy6UApOXO7temzue6MJg/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qS4ZzkfVQXxtyjj0vPuq_B85UsV8ivwr5YKKbWhex5E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wrnU1X98UE89muaDDvrYfgdPhuBXHuH6VBIO07ebtMM/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2. Begin analysis of the first four (4) source documents of previously collected data with respect to the Claims Charter Questions:

  a. Claims Charter Question 1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIdqJc89FkVStHuceMBeShWVWD0JRD185FY5ZUjySLo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  

-- Comments from Kristine Dorraine:  Only info that might have been helpful was the questions to the TMCH provider.  Some comments to the original charter questions that this was a bad idea because it gave too much to brand owners, but with only 375 labels added to the TMCH suggests that there is not as much deterrence.

-- Comments from Kathy Kleiman: Talks about unintended consequences because Deloitte is doing unexpected things -- putting design marks into the TMCH.  So things that weren't anticipated to be there.

-- Comments from Griffin Barnett: Noted that Kristine said there isn't a lot of data to help answer the questions.  Found just two small pieces of data -- initial responses from Deloitte re: the meaning of Claims Notices and the issue of intended versus unintended consequences.  Deactivation of the mark -- relevant to the issue of intended/unintended consequences (marks no longer valid getting the benefit of protection).

Discussion:

-- Re: Deloitte being unable to delete mark records causing unintended consequences - but doesn't mean that the record is still working.  A record in the TMCH doesn't mean it's active.

-- Has Deloitte confirmed that the old records are not being used?   SMD files are applicable to Sunrise, not to Claims.

-- Just because records are not being deleted from the database doesn't mean they are continuing to be active when identified as being no longer legitimate.

-- Part B: unintended consequences -- adequacy of the Claims Notice and TMCH not being searchable.  

-- Discernable elements of design marks -- blocking the ability to record those in the TMCH would threaten the ability of SMEs to record in the TMCH (those that have design marks).

-- The TMCH wasn't intended to be a TM search tool.  Anything recorded in the TMCH would be discoverable via a search elsewhere.

-- Searchable elsewhere is not the same as being uniquely identified.

-- Reference to SMEs and design marks is misleading in this context -- agree with Kathy's comments.

-- Limited TM budget means you have to decide to register the stylized form, word, etc.  Not all of the above.  Appropriate to have design marks in the TMCH.

  b. Claims Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P2mckW_nLHiyffxLhT6h2NCWfpjwAcXQ4zjG1-c2sac/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

-- No relevant data from first 4 data sources.

  c. Claims Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10R4qNC_2zEoLs-0C8_yylxavy6UApOXO7temzue6MJg/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

-- Comments from Kathy Kleiman: Claims notice not meeting its intended consequences since it was not drafted for these situations -- geographical indications and design marks.  (As was noted in comments to Q1).

-- Comments from Griffin Barnett: Small amount of relevant data for this question.  First (as also related to Q1) from the first Deloitte responses -- most questions they received related to TM management issues.  Such as what to do after you receive a Claims Notice.  Secondly, the other data was Deloitte summarizing what is in the Claims Notice.

3. AOB: Timeline/Workload

-- Using the proposed Work Plan thus far.

-- The Work Plan can be adjusted if the work cannot be completed as in the draft proposed procedures.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190207/78589aff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190207/78589aff/smime-0001.p7s>