[Gnso-rpm-trademark] TM Claims Q2

[Tushnet, Rebecca]

I found some of the proposed summary not fully reflective of our discussion and possibly confusing.  While some portions of the proposed summary detail disagreements, Q2 didn't, and our practice should be consistent in one direction or the other.  With that in mind, here are my suggestions:


Q2(c)

Answer: Where there is a Claims Period (see Q2(d)), it should not be shortened.

Q2(d)

Answer: Some members of the Subteam believed that .brand gTLDs had no need for a Claims period, because there will be no individual registrants in a .brand.  Some members suggested that certain highly regulated new gTLDs, on the order of .bank, might not need a Claims period because of the other requirements for registration, while another member argued that a Claims periodwould still be appropriate and not harmful.

….

Recommendation: The Trademark Claims Sub Team recommends, in general,

that the current requirement for a mandatory Claims Period

be maintained, including for the minimum initial 90-day period when a

TLD opens for general registration.

In addition, the Trademark Claims Sub Team recommends that public

comment be sought on whether there is a use case for exempting a

gTLD that is approved in subsequent expansion rounds from the

requirement of a mandatory Claims Period due to the particular nature of

that gTLD. Such type of gTLD might include: (i) restricted TLDs that bar

any commercial use due to their terms of use or acceptable use

policy; (ii) “highly regulated” TLDs that have stringent requirements for registering entities, on the order of .bank; and/or (iii) “Dot Brand” TLDs whose proposed registration model

demonstrates that the use of a Claims Service is unnecessary.



Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190521/168fada1/attachment.html>