[gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Outcomes from Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting 14 Sep 2016

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks for the update, David. Sorry I was absent from the meeting but I was on an airplane at the time.

It looks like some good progress was made, and I look forward to being back in the loop next week.

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

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Tait
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:08 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Notes and Outcomes from Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting 14 Sep 2016

Dear All

Please find below the notes and actions arising from today’s meeting.

The Working Group (WG) was provided with an extensive overview of the TMCH and its functioning.

ACTION: (i) WG participants are strongly encourage to provide information on their experiences and any particularly cases they can provide information on to assist the WG's deliberations, and (ii)Additional possible questions to be shared on mailing list for consideration.

The WG then undertook a ‘deep dive' on the TMCH related Charter questions proposing the following additional questions:


•         TMCH goes into the legality of a trademark too much, this is the responsibility of the trademark owners and their attorneys.


•         TMCH should act as a nodal agency only without rendering any determination on the legal validity of marks. It should have no discretion.


•         Questions have been raised about costs beyond those advertised upfront on the TMCH page e.g. renewals through agents and deposits, the WG should work on the true cost of registration.


•         Has there been 'gaming' or abuse observed in relation to the TMCH?


•         How are marks which have and have not undergone substantive review been differentiated in the TMCH?


•         From those jurisdictions which do not provide for substantive review of the mark are any further procedures or analysis undertaken by the TMCH?

The next WG meeting will take place on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 21:00 UTC and will focus on the Sunrise period.

David A. Tait
Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Mobile: + 44-7864-793776
Email:  david.tait at icann.org<mailto:david.tait at icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12863 - Release Date: 08/23/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160915/f7baa793/attachment.html>