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

Mon Dec 19 16:10:17 UTC 2016

+1 - Physical property is not the only type of *asset* recognized
under international
accounting standards <http://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias38>.
Before someone acquires a domain asset, they are being put on notice that
someone may already have a different type of relevant asset, namely a
trademark right.  It's just a clearinghouse, not an arbiter of rights.

<http://riskiq.com/>

*jonathan matkowsky*,

vp – ip & brand security

usa:: 1.347.467.1193 <(347)%20467-1193> | office:: +972-(0)8-926-2766
<+972%208-926-2766>

emergency mobile:: +972-(0)54-924-0831 <+972%2054-924-0831>

company reg. no. 514805332
<http://havarot.justice.gov.il/CompaniesDetails.aspx?id=514805332>

11/1 nachal chever, modiin israel

<https://twitter.com/riskiq>
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/RiskIQ/555939994512820>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/riskiq_2>
<https://plus.google.com/+Riskiq/posts>

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:28 AM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:

> 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, Director
>
> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
>
> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>
> www.ip-law.legal
>
> *T* SG +65 6532 2577 <+65%206532%202577>
>
> *T* US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180>
>
> *T* IL +972 9 950 7000 <+972%209-950-7000>
>
> *F *IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
>
> 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 <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 <(310)%20963-7135>
> 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
> <+32%202%20736%2003%2005> *
>
> *Mobile: + 32 496 61 03 95 <+32%20496%2061%2003%2095>*
>
> *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=company_name>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <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
> <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
>
> 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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
> <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
>
> 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 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162>
> (cell)
>
> jsevans at adobe.com
>
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/13/16, 4:18 AM, "Paul Keating" <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> 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 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162>
> (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>
> >>www.adobe.com
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>On 12/13/16, 4:06 AM, "Paul Keating" <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> 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 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162 <(408)%20709-6162>
> (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>
> >>>>www.adobe.com
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>On 12/13/16, 3:44 AM, "Paul Keating" <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>
>
> >>>>>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
>
> >>>>>>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
> <+65%206532%202577> T
>
> >>>>>>US +1 212 999 6180 <(212)%20999-6180> T IL +972 9 950 7000
> <+972%209-950-7000> F IL +972 9 950 5500 <+972%209-950-5500>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>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
> <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>; J. Scott Evans
>
> >>>>>><jsevans at adobe.com>; 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
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>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
>
> >>>>>>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
> <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
>
> >>>>>>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> 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 <(408)%20536-5336> (tel), 408.709.6162
> <(408)%20709-6162> (cell) jsevans at adobe.com
>
> >>>>>>>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>
>
> >>>>>>>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/2016/08/
>
> >>>>>>>>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
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>"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 <(416)%20588-0269>
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.leap.com/
>
> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>
> >>>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >>>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> >>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>________________________________
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>><ACL>
>
> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>
> >>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >>>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> >>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
>
> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> >>>>>>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> >>>>>>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
>
> >>>>>>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
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> 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 <(800)%20237-2000>) or reply to this e-mail and
> delete all copies of this message.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:58500ea517621872078907!
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20161219/cab59606/attachment-0001.html>