[gnso-rpm-wg] PDDRP topics -- limitation period to bring a PDDRP

Paul@law.es ZIMBRA paul at law.es
Wed Jul 20 19:02:33 UTC 2016


I agree that a mutual jurisdiction should be specified.  HOWEVER, as we have seen in the context of the UDRP there are many jurisdictions that satisfy the conduction for being a "mutual jurisdiction" but that do not recognize the underlying claim as a valid cause of action.

In the UDRP context this often leaves the respondent in a position in which it may obtain the automatic suspension of decision only by filing in a jurisdiction that does not recognize its right to do so.

Paul Keating

> On 20 Jul 2016, at 8:26 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 
> Steve brings up (indirectly) an interesting topic, namely that there is no "mutual jurisdiction" clause to the PDDRP (21.3 only says a "court of competent jurisdiction"). If a complaint (or appeal) was brought by one side in a jurisdiction that the other side doesn't accept, how would it be resolved? 
> 
> Obviously it would have to be resolved by the court in which the law suit was brought (i.e as a defense to the action) and/or some other "superior" jurisdiction. [Perhaps some of the registrars, who have similar "court of competent jurisdiction" language in their registrar agreements might want to chime in......I hope that Tucows, for example, would ignore any orders from a Turkish or Iranian court for a Canadian or US-based registrant who obeys Canadian/US laws.]
> 
> So, if we modified the time limit in the manner he suggests, we have to be very careful to phrase things in such a manner as to not assume that a certain jurisdiction's time limits would actually apply. i.e. the location of the registry operator would definitely be a valid jurisdiction to bring an action against them. The preferred location of the TM holder / PDDRP complainant may or may not be a valid jurisdiction.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com> wrote:
>> George,
>> 
>> I understand the foundation of your idea - that parties should not have greater rights through the PDDRP than they would in a court of law.  But, by the same token, they shouldn't have lesser rights either.
>> 
>> As such, I suggest revising your recommendation so that any time limit for bringing a PDDRP claim would be the longer of the applicable statute of limitations for such a claim in the complainant’s or respondent's  jurisdictions if such claim were to have been brought in the courts.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>> 
>> <Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small[4].png>
>> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>> Accent Law Group, Inc.
>> 301 Fulton St.
>> Philadelphia, PA 19147
>> United States
>> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
>> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com
>> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/ 
>> ________________________________________
>> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/20/16, 1:49 PM, "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:
>> 
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> I don't think this was brought up before yet in the context of the
>> PDDRP, but perhaps it can be added to the list of topics.
>> 
>> It would be very odd if complainants were allowed to bring a PDDRP for
>> a matter that was not able to be brought by them in a court of law,
>> because it was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. I think
>> amending the PDDRP to explicitly add a time limit for bringing a PDDRP
>> would make sense, to handle this situation. 2 years would be a
>> suitable limit, in my opinion, and would help ensure that complaints
>> are brought in a timely fashion.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160720/62e67b83/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list