[gnso-rpm-wg] Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories document - 2 December 2016
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Mon Dec 19 16:07:18 UTC 2016
you are correct. I overstepped.
From: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
Date: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 4:49 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
categories document - 2 December 2016
> Paul:
>
> This is really not the working group to have the discussion as to whether
> trademarks are property or a right to exclude. The same goes for domain names
> and whether they are property or mere contractual rights. Be it as it may,
> putting aside the philosophical or conceptual issues, trademarks and domains
> names are generally treated as assets regardless of whether you are a
> trademark owner, a domain name registrant, a domainer etc. I don't think any
> particular group has the corner on "entitlement," as you say, as each group
> seeks to obtain the maximum amount protection for its activities. The simple
> point is that we are talking about the TMCH and seeing these emails makes me
> think we are getting off track from what we are here to do. I'd love to
> debate the issue one day over a drink or coffee, but for now we should be
> focused of the effectiveness and shortcomings of the TMCH, how it functions
> and whether any changes are needed.
>
> From: Paul Keating
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 9:01 AM
> To: J. Scott Evans
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories
> document - 2 December 2016
>
> Sorry to be quippy here but……
>
> No. You may want it to be but it is merely an exclusive right of use. It is
> no more than a license granted by the United States (or other) government.
>
> The trademark crowd has long attempted to include trademarks in the holy
> confines of IP. Traditionally Intellectual Property was reserved for patents
> and copyrights – things that required the term. To an extent they have
> succeeded and there are more than a few courts that have confused things and
> used the term “property” when discussing trademark rights.
>
> The same expansive thinking has been bantered about by the copyright industry
> in speaking of copyrights as a constitutionally guaranteed right. The
> Constitution grants no such thing. It merely empowers Congress to make laws
> about…..
>
> This is an error and I would love the day that we return to the correct
> reference points. Otherwise we will continue to move down the entitlement
> path in which everything becomes a “property right”.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>
> Date: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:28 AM
> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
> Cc: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>, Reg Levy <reg at mmx.co>, Marie
> Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>, "John C. McElwaine"
> <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, James Brian
> Beckham <brian.beckham at wipo.int>, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>,
> "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated categories
> document - 2 December 2016
>
>> Paul:
>>
>> I disagree. A trademark is in fact a property right.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Paul at law.es ZIMBRA <paul at law.es> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm replying to a few of the top emails
>>>
>>> First, you do t know the use of the domain. That is rather the point. By
>>> allowing the T,CH to be used as a preventative tool we must weigh the
>>> balances of the exclusive right of use represented un the trademark and the
>>> rights of domain registrants to use the domain for any other purpose.
>>>
>>> Second, Marie, a trademark is NOT a property right. It is a right of
>>> exclusive use granted by governmental authority over the use of a term,
>>> word, or other element in association with a specific product or service.
>>> AND that right is LIMITED jurisdictionally.
>>>
>>> But, again, at this juncture we are getting ahead of ourselves in this
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Paul Keating
>>>
>>> On 19 Dec 2016, at 7:16 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you know what the intended use of the domain name will be? How will
>>>> you ensure the intended use is maintained?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <SANLogSmallNew_485a3de7-c8c5-4ec6-b34d-6de68607f295.png>Jonathan Agmon (胡韩
>>>> 森)Advocate, DirectorAttorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New
>>>> York)jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal <mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>>>> www.ip-law.legal <http://www.ip-law.legal>
>>>> T SG +65 6532 2577 T US +1 212 999 6180 TIL +972 9 950 7000
>>>> F IL +972 9 950 5500 Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.133 New
>>>> Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425
>>>> 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Reg Levy [mailto:reg at mmx.co]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:09 AM
>>>> To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
>>>> Cc: John C. McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>; Philip S. 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>; James Brian
>>>> Beckham <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>;
>>>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Updated TMCH Charter Questions tabulated
>>>> categories document - 2 December 2016
>>>>
>>>> I agree. Limiting domain names that match trademarks to only their uses in
>>>> the offline world (no apple.food) also would violate the stated purpose of
>>>> the New gTLD Program—to promote competition and consumer choice. If the
>>>> TMCH is just going to create a carbon copy of .com in every TLD, we’ve all
>>>> wasted a number of years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reg Levy
>>>> VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited
>>>> C: +1-310-963-7135
>>>> S: RegLevy2
>>>>
>>>> Current UTC offset: -8
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13 Dec 2016, at 07:34, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image007.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> <image008.png> <http://twitter.com/AIMbrands> <image009.png>
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association?trk=com
>>>>> pany_name>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----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 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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>> <http://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_c
>>>>>>>>>>> alle
>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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/20
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16/08/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning
> of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its
> disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this
> message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential
> attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
> any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404
> 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without
> reading or saving in any manner.
>
>
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
> herein.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161219/3e34d0da/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list