[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Closing Date Extended: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4

[Ariel Liang]

Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,

Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination, the closing date of the Discussion Thread for the Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 4 has been extended. It will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 22 May 2019. The extension is granted to encourage further discussion about this question on list.

You may wish to reference the latest version Summary Table (as of 17 May 2019), pages 18-26, for your review/input: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2817%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558112544184&api=v2

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel

From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-trademark at icann.org>
Subject: [Discussion Thread] TM Claims Q4


Dear Trademark Claims Sub Team members,


As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Trademark Claims Agreed Charter Question 4.


We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question.



Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.


Summary Table (Pages 16-20)

The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138613/%5BClaims%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515784000&api=v2

Agreed Trademark Claims Question 4 (Page 16-17)
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 4 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.

Q4: Is the exact match requirement for Trademark Claims serving the intended purposes of the Trademark Claims RPM? In conducting this analysis, recall that IDNs and Latin-based words with accents and umlauts are currently not serviced or recognized by many registries.
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(a) What is the evidence of harm under the existing system?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(b) Should the matching criteria for Notices be expanded?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(b)(i) Should the marks in the TMCH be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of claims notices?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(b)(ii) What results (including unintended consequences) might each suggested form of expansion of matching criteria have?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(b)(iii) What balance should be adhered to in striving to deter bad-faith registrations but not good-faith domain name applications?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(b)(iv) What is the resulting list of non-exact match criteria recommended by the WG, if any?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(c) What is the feasibility of implementation for each form of expanded matches?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(d) If an expansion of matches solution were to be implemented:
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(d)(i) Should the existing TM Claims Notice be amended? If so, how?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q4(d)(ii) Should the Claim period differ for exact matches versus non-exact matches?
Proposed Answer: TBD


Where to Find All Discussion Threads
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg


Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190517/0d51cd4f/attachment.html>