[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Mon Apr 10 22:25:22 UTC 2017

Yes, Georges -- but you have conflated the discussion and drawn some false analogies which are not really useful to discussing the issues, and not supportive of a debate.

I will join with others to ask: Please submit evidence that the TMCH, Claims or Sunrise have had the effect of prior constraint or other restriction of free expression of ideas, thought, or comment on the internet.

Michael R.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann at leap.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:21 PM
To: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com>
Cc: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

MIchael: the USPTO debate may have been whether they should be "put online", for everyone to be able to view them from the convenience of their home over the internet, rather than being forced to go to a certain office physically to view them. i.e. *maximum* transparency.

In contrast, the TMCH doesn't even have any transparency.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com> wrote:
> Huh? USPTO records have always been open to the public -- except in exceptional cases where they may be made confidential.  When was the potential confidentiality of these debated with the confidentiality of the TMCH database?
>
> Michael R.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann at leap.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:11 PM
> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
> Cc: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham at expedia.com>; 
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the 
> Working Group call held earlier today
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> And in my prior email, note that John Berryhill correctly pointed out that all the arguments that some are using to advocate that the TMCH be kept secret were REJECTED in the same debate as to whether the USPTO databases should be kept secret. We should learn from the past, and open things up.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>> With information like that below, and recognizing that the TMCH 
>> sunrise and notice programs were intended to provide a balanced approach:
>>
>> 1.  I fail to see any reason why we should not be allowed to view the 
>> database; or
>>
>> 2.  Treat the failure to be transparent as conclusive evidence that 
>> the system is being gamed beyond the balance point, thus justifying revision.
>>
>> I have seen several emails protesting such transparency but although 
>> having asked several times, I have never seen any evidence 
>> contradicting the facts noted below, or any legal basis for precluding transparency.
>>
>> I join George in asking that this issue be opened to the air so to 
>> speak and that we push for disclosure of the TMCH database so that we 
>> can perform our job to determine if the programs are being abused.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 10 Apr 2017, at 23:27, Michael Graham (ELCA) 
>> <migraham at expedia.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> George:
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, apologies for coming into this conversation late, but could 
>> you clarify what you meaning by the term “gaming”?
>>
>>
>>
>> The only usage I can call to mind in connection with the TMCH would 
>> be
>> (1) the acquisition of a trademark registration without actual or 
>> intended use of the trademark in order to register the registration 
>> in the TMCH, or (2) the fabrication of evidence of Use and its 
>> submission to the TMCH in order to entitle one to Sunrise registration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael R. Graham
>>
>>
>>
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 2:18 PM
>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the 
>> Working Group call held earlier today
>>
>>
>>
>> Some more examples of gaming of the TMCH sunrises, via public blog posts:
>>
>> 1. via Kevin Murphy of DomainIncite.com:
>>
>> http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-peri
>> o
>> ds
>>
>> DIRECT, CLOUD, and SOCIAL
>>
>> Note the comments below that blog post by John Berryhill, who wrote 
>> "…and the attorney who was unable to use her client’s US registration 
>> for “PHYSICS” with the inconvenient disclaimer, and who then obtained 
>> a late change in the TMCH rules allowing figurative registrations, so 
>> that her client could use a foreign logo registration to obtain the 
>> TMCH entry for that word… is she an IPC member, Kristina?"
>>
>> implying that the common term "PHYSICS" might also be gamed, by an 
>> IPC member. And there are other comments by him and others on that 
>> page that are worth reading.
>>
>> 2. via Konstantinos Zournas of OnlineDomain.com:
>>
>> http://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-gen
>> e
>> ric-domains-in-new-gtld-sunrises/
>>
>> regarding CLOUD, SOCIAL, BUILD, BET, VACATION, DISCOUNT, WEDDING and 
>> others
>> (...etc.) More than 30 TMs of very common terms are mentioned, and 
>> over 300 domains were found by that one blogger. There are 46 
>> comments to that blog post, too.
>>
>> I renew the call for a public comment period, so that more of these 
>> kinds of examples of can be submitted to the working group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Rebecca Tushnet 
>> <Rebecca.Tushnet at law.georgetown.edu> wrote:
>>
>> When you refuse to say what you would count as evidence of a problem, 
>> that leaves us with the evidence I, and George, and Bret, and others 
>> have offered--if we want to call them "Group 2" TMCH registrants that 
>> would make sense to me.
>>
>>
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>
>> Georgetown Law
>>
>> 703 593 6759
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg