[gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Tue Dec 13 15:52:58 UTC 2016


Marie,

This stage is only forming the question.  The potential responses to the
question have not yet been discussed and need not be.  The possible results
include:

Yes and X should be done;
Yes, but in reality nothing can be done; or
No.

However, as noted, we are not there yet.

Paul

From:  Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Date:  Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 4:34 PM
To:  'John McElwaine' <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>, Phil Corwin
<psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "'J. Scott Evans'" <jsevans at adobe.com>, Paul Keating
<paul at law.es>, 'Jonathan Agmon' <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>, "'Beckham,
Brian'" <brian.beckham at wipo.int>, 'George Kirikos' <icann at leap.com>,
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
categories document - 2 December 2016

> I’ve spent the afternoon back reading the threads here and I have to hold my
> hands up and admit I’m confused. We all know that ICANN isn’t a legislative
> body, and we all know that it can’t (and I very much doubt it would want to!)
> make law. Various laws in the various jurisdictions around the world include
> various TM laws, which in turn include rules and practises for how and why TMs
> are granted. That’s what the TMCH is - a repository of TMs that have been
> legally granted. No?
>  
> And unless and until a TM lapses, or is cancelled, it’s as much a legal
> property right as any other. It can’t be OK for an independent administrative
> repository of TMs to decide to ignore some legal property rights, surely? If
> the TMCH were just a private list with no function then we’d be on different
> ground, but given that it’s the gatekeeper for accessing certain RPMs I can’t
> see under what basis this administrative repository could be allowed to choose
> which property rights are allowed through the gate and which aren’t.
>  
> I’m sorry if this is naïve, but I honestly don’t understand how the TMCH can
> be the court of appeal for the legality of TM rights. Isn’t that why we have
> actual courts? And holding it out to be some form of appeal body is surely
> only going to confuse non-TM people, like most registrants, as to its
> “powers”.
>  
> Following that, and John’s questions, what are we trying to do? Limit any DN
> containing a TM to uses that the TM has in the offline world? But not limiting
> any other word to uses it may have offline? So isn’t that actually
> discriminating against words that are in TMs against words that aren’t -
> dictionary, arbitrary, proper or just plain made up? What are we actually
> trying to do?
>  
> I’m sorry for the TLDR post and sorry also for my confusion. I plead fuzziness
> of brain brought on by sociable Belgian cold viruses.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Marie
>  
>  
> Marie Pattullo
> Senior Trade Marks and Brand Protection Manager
> AIM - European Brands Association
> 9 avenue des Gaulois
> B-1040 Brussels
> Tel : + 32 2 736 03 05
> Mobile: + 32 496 61 03 95
> EU Transparency register ID no.: 1074382679-01
> Visit our web site at www.aim.be <http://www.aim.be/>
> Follow us on:
>  <http://twitter.com/AIMbrands>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association?trk=company
> _name> 
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of John McElwaine
> Sent: mardi 13 décembre 2016 16:06
> To: Phil Corwin; J. Scott Evans; Paul Keating; Jonathan Agmon; Beckham, Brian;
> George Kirikos; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
> categories document - 2 December 2016
>  
> Phil,
>  
> Thanks for this.  I'm just seeking some clarification:   Does this question
> seek whether the TMCH should be limited in its application to Trademark Claims
> Notices and Sunrise Processes in which the domain name being registered is
> going to be used in a manner that relates to the goods and services contained
> in the registration, if the registration consists of a word found in a
> dictionary?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> John
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ]
> On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:58 AM
> To: J. Scott Evans; Paul Keating; Jonathan Agmon; Beckham, Brian; George
> Kirikos; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
> categories document - 2 December 2016
>  
> Good day to all. I have been tied up this morning on the call of the WS2
> Jurisdiction subgroup.
>  
> The proposed compromise language agreed upon by the co-chairs and suggested
> for your consideration as a path forward so we can get the questions out and
> get on to the work of reviewing and understanding the answers is as follows:
>  
>         Should the scope of the TMCH be limited to apply only to the
> categories of goods and services in which the dictionary term(s) within a
> trademark are protected? If so, how?  In responding to this question, you
> should note that the original submitters of the related       charter
> questions seem to be been particularly concerned about "generic terms"
> representing the common or class name for the    goods and services.
>  
> We hope this proposed formulation will prove acceptable to members of this WG.
> Thanks for your consideration.
>  
> Best to all, Philip
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ]
> On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 7:24 AM
> To: Paul Keating; Jonathan Agmon; Beckham, Brian; George Kirikos;
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
> categories document - 2 December 2016
> Importance: High
>  
> Phil?
>  
>  
> J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright, Domains &
> Marketing | Adobe
> 345 Park Avenue
> San Jose, CA 95110
> 408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell)
> jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
> www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 12/13/16, 4:18 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es <mailto:Paul at law.es> >
> wrote:
>  
>> >Please circulate it prior to the call.
>> > 
>> >On 12/13/16, 1:10 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com
>> <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com> > wrote:
>> > 
>>> >>The Co-Chairs have a proposed compromise revision drafted by Phil that
>>> >>we will propose to the group.
>>> >> 
>>> >>J. Scott
>>> >> 
>>> >>J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>>> >>Domains & Marketing | Adobe
>>> >>345 Park Avenue
>>> >>San Jose, CA 95110
>>> >>408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>>> <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>>> >>www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >>On 12/13/16, 4:06 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es <mailto:Paul at law.es> >
>>> wrote:
>>> >> 
>>>> >>>Good suggestion J. Scott.
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>>Can we live with the question as follows?
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>>Should the scope of the TMCH be limited in its application to
>>>> >>>trademarks containing dictionary terms which are generic or
>>>> >>>descriptive?  If so how?
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>>Paul
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>>On 12/13/16, 12:51 PM, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com
>>>> <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com> > wrote:
>>>> >>> 
>>>>> >>>>Again, and at the risk of repeating myself. And, as Brian Beckham
>>>>> >>>>pointed out this morning, there are quite a few of us in the ICANN
>>>>> >>>>community and on the list that understand the nuances of generic,
>>>>> >>>>descriptive, arbitrary and fanciful marks as land out in Abercrombie
>>>>> >>>>by Learned Hand oh so long ago. However, in the bigger picture
>>>>> >>>>policy debate most stakeholders do not understand. They believe that
>>>>> >>>>a term is "generic" if it is a WORD with a meaning and are quite
>>>>> >>>>frustrated when they find that they cannot own ACETOOLS.COM for
>>>>> >>>>their site that is for really cool tools. This misunderstanding is
>>>>> >>>>then conflated in the policy debate and causes all kinds of
>>>>> >>>>confusion and misunderstanding. Hence, I believe the better term is
>>>>> >>>>"dictionary term" which under the Abercrombie factors can be either
>>>>> >>>>generic, descriptive or arbitrary depending on the circumstances.
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>>J. Scott
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>>J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks, Copyright,
>>>>> >>>>Domains & Marketing | Adobe
>>>>> >>>>345 Park Avenue
>>>>> >>>>San Jose, CA 95110
>>>>> >>>>408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>> <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>> >>>>www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>>On 12/13/16, 3:44 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es <mailto:Paul at law.es>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Jonathan,
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Not to be nit-picky but your definition is incorrect.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Generic:  Relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class;
>>>>>> >>>>>general, as opposed to specific or special.  (Black's Law
>>>>>> >>>>>Dictionary)
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>A 'generic term" is one which is commonly used as the name or
>>>>>> >>>>>description of a kind of goods and it is generally accepted that a
>>>>>> >>>>>generic term is incapable of achieving trade name protection.  For
>>>>>> >>>>>example, any single seller can not have trademark rights in
>>>>>> >>>>>"television" or "oven." When a seller is given exclusive rights to
>>>>>> >>>>>call something by its recognized name, it would amount to a
>>>>>> >>>>>practical monopoly on selling that type of product.
>>>>>> >>>>>Even established trademarks can lose their protection if they are
>>>>>> >>>>>used generically. For example (in U.S.), thermos and aspirin.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>A descriptive term (which many people refer to as a "dictionary
>>>>>> >>>>>term") is merely that - a term used in its descriptive sense (e.g.
>>>>>> >>>>>"Redbarn" is descriptive for selling red barns but not for hotels).
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Treatment in differing jurisdictions complicates matters.  For
>>>>>> >>>>>example, the term "donut" is a trademark in Spain for donuts.  It
>>>>>> >>>>>was obtained way back when when the registrant saw donuts during a
>>>>>> >>>>>visit to the US, returned to Spain and began producing them and
>>>>>> >>>>>registered the trademark.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Thus, the term has nothing to do with consumer perception of source.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Moreover, most generic terms are by definition "in the dictionary".
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>The problem I encounter most with generic/descriptive terms are in
>>>>>> >>>>>the context of figurative marks.  Although the USPTO is getting
>>>>>> >>>>>better at requiring disclaimers, they were not so diligent in the
>>>>>> >>>>>future.  In my experience, most other jurisdictions do not
>>>>>> >>>>>rigorously impose disclaimer obligations.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Another source of constant frustration is with Section 2(f).
>>>>>> >>>>>Again, while the USPTO appears to becoming more diligent they were
>>>>>> >>>>>simply horrible in the past.  Other jurisdictions do not have a
>>>>>> >>>>>similar provision and, for example, France, has a terrible
>>>>>> >>>>>reputation for registering even the most descriptive (and even
>>>>>> >>>>>generic) terms.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>I think the question regarding generic marks in the TMCH has merit
>>>>>> >>>>>and should be discussed and this thread is but one example of why.
>>>>>> >>>>>Again, whether we reach conclusions as to the question is a
>>>>>> >>>>>different issue for a different day.
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>Paul Keating
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>>On 12/13/16, 12:12 PM, "Jonathan Agmon"
>>>>>> >>>>><jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> >
>>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>All,
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Just to contribute another angle and perhaps a helpful example.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I think that dictionary words and generic terms are two different
>>>>>>> >>>>>>species. A dictionary word is a word that is defined in the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>dictionary.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>For example the word "apple" is defined as "a fruit (as a star
>>>>>>> >>>>>>apple) or other vegetative growth". A generic term is a legal
>>>>>>> >>>>>>standard in trademark law denoting a mark whose source cannot be
>>>>>>> >>>>>>identified by consumers.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>And
>>>>>>> >>>>>>if consumers think that a single source exists for that term then
>>>>>>> >>>>>>by law the term is not generic. Therefore, in this example, APPLE,
>>>>>>> >>>>>>a dictionary word by all accounts, may be a dictionary word for
>>>>>>> >>>>>>fruit, is not a generic term and will in all likelihood be
>>>>>>> >>>>>>considered a strong trademark for computers.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>This is just one example and you should consider that the term
>>>>>>> >>>>>>"generic"
>>>>>>> >>>>>>as a term of art in trademark law. It has nothing to do with
>>>>>>> >>>>>>dictionary words. Moreover, some dictionary words can be weak
>>>>>>> >>>>>>trademarks at one time and strong trademarks at another time.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>You can consider for example the marks NYLON or XEROX. You can
>>>>>>> >>>>>>find both of them in the dictionary. The term NYLON was an
>>>>>>> >>>>>>invented mark, invented in 1935 by DuPont. It arguably became
>>>>>>> >>>>>>generic (from a trademark
>>>>>>> >>>>>>perspective) when consumers all started referring to synthetic
>>>>>>> >>>>>>polymers from every manufacture (not just DuPont) as Nylon.  XEROX
>>>>>>> >>>>>>invented a photocopying machine. The term came close to turning
>>>>>>> >>>>>>generic when in the eighties consumers used the verb "Xeroxing"
>>>>>>> >>>>>>instead of "photocopying".
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Xeorx, the company changed that and today by all accounts the mark
>>>>>>> >>>>>>XEROX is not generic but rather a trademark for photocopying
>>>>>>> >>>>>>machines.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Taking the above into account ,the policies below state "generic
>>>>>>> >>>>>>or descriptive" not generic or dictionary words. The term
>>>>>>> >>>>>>descriptive is another term of art in trademark law, which refers
>>>>>>> >>>>>>to a trademark that describes the goods it is applied to. The
>>>>>>> >>>>>>examples of "toy, shop, cleaner, lawyer..." are only descriptive
>>>>>>> >>>>>>for the relevant goods or services they are attached to.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Non-lawyers would immediately associate these terms with their
>>>>>>> >>>>>>respective meaning.  But, these terms can serve as trademarks too.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>It all depends on the circumstances and consumer perception. One
>>>>>>> >>>>>>last example would be the use of TOY on a yogurt product.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Check out the attachment - the term JOY is applied to a yogurt
>>>>>>> >>>>>>product.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>While the term JOY can be descriptive of a feeling, it is not
>>>>>>> >>>>>>descriptive for yogurt products. So long as consumers don't call
>>>>>>> >>>>>>any yogurt product JOY, then it is also not generic.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>I hope this helps.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Jonathan Agmon(???)
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Advocate, PARTNER
>>>>>>> >>>>>>jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>www.ip-law.legal <http://www.ip-law.legal>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
>>>>>>> >>>>>>8 Hahoshlim Street, 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL T SG +65 6532 2577 T
>>>>>>> >>>>>>US +1 212 999 6180 T IL +972 9 950 7000 F IL +972 9 950 5500
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or
>>>>>>> >>>>>>otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail
>>>>>>> >>>>>>reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this
>>>>>>> >>>>>>message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax
>>>>>>> >>>>>>any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not
>>>>>>> >>>>>>screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of
>>>>>>> >>>>>>this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.-----Original
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Message-----
>>>>>>> >>>>>>From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Beckham, Brian
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 5:42 PM
>>>>>>> >>>>>>To: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es <mailto:Paul at law.es> >; J. Scott
>>>>>>> Evans 
>>>>>>> >>>>>><jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com> >; George Kirikos
>>>>>>> <icann at leap.com <mailto:icann at leap.com> >;
>>>>>>> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions
>>>>>>> >>>>>>tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Paul, all,
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>A timely post on CircleID speaks to (intentional) confusion on the
>>>>>>> >>>>>>"generic"/dictionary dichotomy:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161212_appearing_respondents_calle
>>>>>>> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20161212_appearing_respondents_calle>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>d_o
>>>>>>> >>>>>>u
>>>>>>> >>>>>>t
>>>>>>> >>>>>>_
>>>>>>> >>>>>>a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>s
>>>>>>> >>>>>>_cybersquatters/
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>In that post, Mr. Levine notes:
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>"There's continuing confusion among domain buyers (not likely to
>>>>>>> >>>>>>be professional investors) that dictionary words are 'generic'
>>>>>>> >>>>>>therefore available to the first to register them. That's not the
>>>>>>> case at all.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>There are numerous trademarks composed of common words; weak
>>>>>>> >>>>>>perhaps, and vulnerable when combined with other common words but
>>>>>>> >>>>>>nevertheless protectable with sufficient proof of bad faith."
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Brian
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> >>>>>>From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:24 PM
>>>>>>> >>>>>>To: J. Scott Evans; George Kirikos; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] FW: Updated TMCH Charter Questions
>>>>>>> >>>>>>tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>But it does show that it is not so much rocket science.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>On 12/12/16, 10:11 PM, "J. Scott Evans"
>>>>>>> >>>>>><gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>> >>>>>>on
>>>>>>> >>>>>>behalf of jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com> > wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>That don¹t make it right.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>J. Scott Evans | Associate General Counsel - Trademarks,
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Copyright, Domains & Marketing | Adobe
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>345 Park Avenue
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>San Jose, CA 95110
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>408.536.5336 (tel), 408.709.6162 (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>On 12/12/16, 10:04 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>icann at leap.com <mailto:icann at leap.com> >
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>FYI, re: "generic", both the .uk and the .nz dispute policies
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>reference "generic" domain names, see:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>.uk:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://nominet-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/0
>>>>>>>>> 8/ <http://nominet-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Fin
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>l
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>pro
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>p
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>osed-DRS-Policy.pdf
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"8.1.2 The Domain Name is generic or descriptive and the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Respondent is making fair use of it;"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>.nz: https://www.dnc.org.nz/resource-library/policies/65
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.dnc.org.nz/resource-library/policies/65>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Generic Term means a word or phrase that is a common name in
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>general public use for a product, service, profession, place
or 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>thing. For
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>example: toy; shop; cleaner; lawyers; Wellington;
>>>>>>>>> sparkling-wine"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"6.1.2. The Domain Name is generic or descriptive and the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Respondent is making fair use of it in a way which is
>>>>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>with its generic or descriptive character;"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>George Kirikos
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>416-588-0269
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>><ACL>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This
>>>>>>> >>>>>>electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and
>>>>>>> >>>>>>copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail
>>>>>>> >>>>>>by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this
>>>>>>> >>>>>>e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail
>>>>>>> >>>>>>attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>>******************************************************************
>>>>>>> >>>>>>***
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>**********
>>>>>>> >>>>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
>>>>>>> >>>>>>PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
>>>>>>> >>>>>>computer viruses.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>******************************************************************
>>>>>>> >>>>>>***
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>*
>>>>>>> >>>>>>**********
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> 
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> 
>>> >> 
>> > 
>> > 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
> Confidentiality Notice
>  
> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it
> is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure.
>  
> If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print,
> retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by
> phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this
> message.
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
>  
> !DSPAM:58500ea517621872078907!
>  
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161213/d1b512ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8875 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161213/d1b512ff/image007-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4207 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161213/d1b512ff/image008-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4824 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161213/d1b512ff/image009-0001.png>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list