[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