[gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)

Wed Apr 26 15:48:45 UTC 2017

Short answer: yes.  Do you think that a registrant whose word mark
application was denied because the word was generic, but was allowed
to register a stylized form as sufficiently distinctive, should be
able to use the TMCH?  Because we know Deloitte accepts those now.

Longer answer: yes, because of the fundamental choice to require the
existence of a registered right in a national system behind the TMCH.
The SME or multinational that chooses a fanciful term is entitled to
trademark or passing off protection without registration; the TMCH
still doesn’t accept that fanciful term on the claimant’s say-so.
What we know in looking at a stylized form is: the national authority
accepted that particular form, nothing else.  As I said, I’m open to
exceptions where there is some authority confirming the
distinctiveness of the text portion of the mark alone.

Let’s talk about data: as the STARBUCKS example earlier in the
conversation indicated, registrants like to get the broadest
registration they can, registering the word mark first if the word
mark is in fact distinctive of their offerings and design variants
later.  What data on the use of the TMCH by SMEs exists?  I couldn’t
find it in the audit, and we’ve heard many times that large trademark
owners strategically limit what they put in the TMCH, so there’s no
reason to think that 1-trademark TMCH users are SMEs.  What reason is
there to think a SME would be sophisticated enough to use the TMCH but
not sophisticated enough to register a fanciful mark in text form, or
to use a monitoring service (if it’s a fanciful mark, even a Google
search should do)?

We are supposedly engaged in a cost-benefit analysis.  The benefits of
keeping terms that are not in fact owned by a claimant out of the TMCH
seem worth the costs of keeping out the registrant who made poor
choices, if such exist (which has not yet been shown).
Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
> Rebecca:
> So a small business or startup that due to lack of counsel or lack of funds, registered its coined, fanciful text mark solely in the form of a stylized font, should be denied TMCH protection and have no notice if an identical string to that text is purchased as a domain name?
>
> Best regards,
> Scott
>
>
> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP
> 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
> Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin at VLPLawGroup.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Tushnet
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:34 AM
> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16 (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>
> So far as I can tell, we aren't going back and forth on cases and citations; I'm citing cases and you aren't.  I believe, and teach, that stylized marks get protection. The question then is what kinds of registrations should be accepted into the TMCH as evidence that the text string--the only thing that can go into the TMCH--is itself protected.  Deloitte should not be evaluating the scope of the mark; as we've seen, it gets things very wrong in the examples it returned to us.  Deloitte should focus on protection, not scope, and the way to do that is to see whether the text is itself registered.
>
> Rebecca Tushnet
> Georgetown Law
> 703 593 6759
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>> I agree with J Scott's comments just made to you. We can go back and forth on cases and citations to prove points. I'm not sure the last time you litigated a trademark case, but I can assure you that based on experience a stylized word mark gets protection. The extent of that protection, of course, depends on how strong the word mark might be. If it is a weak descriptive mark, it may only get  a narrow and limited scope of protection ‎. A strong mark would obviously get much more protection. I get that you want to eliminate protection for stylized word marks, but that does not accord with reality. So let's try to focus on fixes.
>>
>>   Original Message
>> ‎
>> From: Rebecca Tushnet
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:59 AM
>> To: Nahitchevansky, Georges
>> Cc: icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>
>>
>> Except we know your statement about the resulting rights is not true:
>> the PARENTS and OWN YOUR POWER cases both hold to the contrary. (For
>> another example, see Decision of the Federal Commission of Appeals of
>> February 3, 1997; SIC II/1997, 180 (Switzerland) (registration of
>> stylized version provides limited rights).)  The stylized version may
>> have a scope broad enough to protect against highly similar stylized
>> versions, but the registration does not provide rights in the word
>> itself.
>>
>> What you are talking about is the vital distinction between the
>> existence of protection via registration or court decision (relatively
>> simple to confirm) and the scope of the rights in the specific mark
>> (particularized, not suited for decision in the abstract and thus not
>> a good thing for Deloitte to be deciding on its own say-so about
>> what's important in admitting marks to the TMCH).
>> Rebecca Tushnet
>> Georgetown Law
>> 703 593 6759
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
>> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>>> Rebecca:
>>>
>>> This is not correct. A stylized word mark gets protection in the US and probably in a number of other juridictions. If I have WIDGET in a stylized form registered , for example, another party  trying to use the same word for the same or related goods and services would be hard pressed to justify as much and would likely lose in a litigation.
>>>
>>> Georges
>>>
>>>   Original Message
>>> From: Rebecca Tushnet
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:38 AM
>>> To: icannlists
>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>
>>>
>>> How does stylization translate into the DNS?  We know that stylized
>>> PARENTS and OWN YOUR POWER, to take two examples already discussed,
>>> provide no trademark rights in the words "parents" and "own your
>>> power."  Accepting stylized versions, as Deloitte currently does,
>>> thus gives TMCH protection to words as to which there is no
>>> underlying trademark protection.  "Text" is not an invention by ICANN.
>>> Rebecca Tushnet
>>> Georgetown Law
>>> 703 593 6759
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:31 AM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
>>>> +1 Brian B. and J. Scott.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The T Markey (stylized) example Kathy gave proves the point I am
>>>> trying to make.  There is nothing about that mark which would not
>>>> translate into the DNS or would limit analysis of it by a trademark office on absolute grounds.
>>>> So long as we continue to mash up Stylized marks with other design
>>>> and composite marks, we simply don’t have a functional vocabulary to
>>>> have this conversation.  In other words, we have to use well
>>>> established trademark vocabulary to talk about trademarks.  We can’t
>>>> invent our own language and then evaluate the TMCH rules through the
>>>> new language rather than the language it was written in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jsevans at adobe.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 6:41 AM
>>>> To: Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>; icannlists
>>>> <icannlists at winston.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have several problems with this proposal too. Kathy's conclusory
>>>> statement about how he breadth of protection afforded by a composite
>>>> or stylized mark is incorrect. Second, and more importantly, I am
>>>> bothered by all the hyperbole and accusatory language like "breach",
>>>> etc. this language is emotional and charged with negativity. I think
>>>> it is inappropriate and not productive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J. Scott
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:10 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kathy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s not clear that the reference to “only marks registered as text”
>>>> is necessarily incompatible with the “T. MARKEY” examples provided.
>>>> The second, stylized version shows a “mark registered as text”.  It
>>>> simply happens to be text in a stylized (non-standard) form.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, a mark “registered as text” may not necessarily be
>>>> exclusively the same as (in USPTO parlance) “a standard character mark”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may therefore not be entirely accurate to suggest that if the
>>>> TMCH allowed the second “T. MARKEY” example in stylized form (again,
>>>> arguably a mark “registered as text”) versus the standard character
>>>> version, it would somehow be “expand[ing] existing trademark rights”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:12 AM
>>>> To: icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> Apologies. I saw your thanks, but not your notes farther down. (For
>>>> those of us skimming hundreds of emails, feel free to use use
>>>> red/green/stars/asterisks to designate comments...) I caught it on a
>>>> re-read...
>>>>
>>>> Quick note that the purpose of this recommendation is to share what
>>>> is clearly before the Working Group: that rules created for the
>>>> Trademark Clearinghouse process are not being followed. The goal is
>>>> not to delve into motive or intent, but rather compliance and
>>>> review. The actions of our TMCH database provider, as an ICANN
>>>> contractor, must follow and comply with the rules as set out by the ICANN Community.
>>>>
>>>> If we want to change the rules, that's fine; we can do it by
>>>> consensus. But until that happens, the rules adopted unanimously by
>>>> the GNSO Council and ICANN Board are the policy. It's not for third
>>>> parties to make their own or follow a different set.
>>>>
>>>> Paul, I'll respond to what I think are your questions below. My
>>>> answers are preceded by => Best, Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2017 8:23 PM, icannlists wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kathy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you so much for being willing to put forward a proposal.  I
>>>> know this is hard work (having put forward one on the GIs myself
>>>> this week!) so it is appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am getting my initial thoughts on this out to the list on this as
>>>> quickly as possible in the hopes that your proposal can be reworked
>>>> a bit prior to our next WG call.  A few thoughts:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.      We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
>>>> marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed
>>>> marks, and any similar combination of characters and design
>>>> (collectively “design marks”).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We spent the better half of our last call untangling these
>>>> definitions and to see them lumped in together again when these are
>>>> not the same things makes the proposal impossible to read for we
>>>> trademark folks.  It would be great if we could include the clarity we achieved last week.
>>>>
>>>> ==> The category is meant to be comprehensive and international.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.      However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
>>>> expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just inaccurate as written, mostly, but not entirely, by the
>>>> way you have defined the terms.  For example, I know of no GNSO
>>>> Council prohibition that would reject a mark just because it is in a
>>>> cursive font instead of plain block font.  Can you either fix this
>>>> or send us to a link supporting the claim?  Perhaps if you unpack
>>>> your collective definition, resulting a more precise claim and
>>>> provide the link, that might give us something to talk about.  As
>>>> written now, I’ve just come to a halt on it because it doesn’t reflect the facts on the ground.
>>>>
>>>> ==> Paul, what I wrote is nearly a direct quote. Please see the
>>>> "Expanded Discussion" discussion which follows in my recommendation
>>>> directly below the opening section and explains exactly where this
>>>> sentence comes from and what it references. I'm happy to paste some
>>>> of this discussion here too. The STI Final Report (adopted by GNSO Council and ICANN Board) stated:
>>>>
>>>> “The TC Database should be required to include nationally or
>>>> multinationally registered “text mark” trademarks, from all
>>>> jurisdictions, (including countries where there is no substantive
>>>> review). (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks
>>>> because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only
>>>> within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a
>>>> mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.) Emphasis added.
>>>> Section 4.1, National or Multinational Registered Marks,
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-
>>>> en.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==> The words mean exactly what they say - only marks registered as
>>>> text can be registered into the Trademark Clearinghouse;  nothing
>>>> that "provide[s] protection for letters and words only within the
>>>> content of their design or logo." It states why: "the STI was under
>>>> a mandate not to expand existing trademark rights." The issue was
>>>> the balancing of underlying concept adopted here as part of the
>>>> rights of trademark owners and the rights of current and future registrants. Domain names are text based.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==> We certainly meant to differentiate a trademark in a "cursive
>>>> font instead of a plain text font." That's the whole purpose for
>>>> Section 4.1's text, and the unusual extra step of including the
>>>> explanation right next to it. Those of us who worked on this section (including myself and Dr.
>>>> Konstantinos Komaitis, whose PhD became the book The Current State
>>>> of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in
>>>> a Mark-Dominated
>>>> World) spent a lot of time on this issue. In evaluating it, the STI
>>>> Final Report followed the guidance of experts such as those at the
>>>> US Trademark Office regarding the different representation of marks:
>>>>
>>>> [USPTO Representation of Mark]  "During the application process for
>>>> a standard character mark, the USPTO will depict the mark in a
>>>> simple standardized typeface format.  However, it is important to
>>>> remember that this depiction does not limit or control the format in
>>>> which you actually "use" the mark.  In other words, the rights
>>>> associated with a mark in standard characters reside in the wording
>>>> (or other literal element, e.g., letters, numerals, punctuation) and not in any particular display.
>>>> Therefore, registration of a standard character mark would entitle
>>>> you to use and protect the mark in any font style, size, or color.
>>>> It is for this reason that a standard character mark can be an
>>>> attractive option for many companies."
>>>>
>>>> "The stylized/design format, on the other hand, is appropriate if
>>>> you wish to register word(s) by themselves or combined to form a
>>>> phrase of any length and/or letter(s) having a particular stylized
>>>> appearance, a mark consisting of a design element, or a combination
>>>> of stylized wording and a design. Once filed, any design element
>>>> will be assigned a “design code,” as set forth in the Design Search Code Manual."
>>>>
>>>> "Here is an example of a standard character mark:
>>>>
>>>> <image001.jpg>"
>>>>
>>>> "Here are some examples of special form marks:
>>>>
>>>> <image002.jpg>  <image003.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>                                                   <image004.jpg>"
>>>>
>>>> Quotes above from
>>>> https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/re
>>>> presentation-mark
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the recommendation follows from these finding. Again,
>>>> this not a matter of a good job or a bad job -- no value judgement
>>>> is intended. Rather it is a compliance and review issue. Are the
>>>> rules followed?  The answer is no.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3.      Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
>>>> adopted and must revise its practice to follow the ruls adopted by
>>>> the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In order to buy this conclusion, the premises have to be correct,
>>>> but the premises (as mentioned in 1 and 2) are not close to ready.
>>>> I have to suspend consideration of the conclusion contained in this
>>>> paragraph due to the faulty syllogism we have in front of us.  Maybe
>>>> if you make the edits in
>>>> 1 and 2 suggested, we can then examine whether or not your paragraph
>>>> 3 conclusion is correct, partially correct, or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.      Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
>>>> and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of
>>>> rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I don’t understand this.  Are you saying that if Deloitte is
>>>> not in breach by letting in marks written in cursive fonts, then the
>>>> WG can by Consensus propose changes?  I’m not sure that the two things are connected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5.      In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
>>>> Further details, information and explanation below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same response as #3 above.  Also, this really confused paragraph 4
>>>> for me further.  It seemed like paragraph 4 indicated that if
>>>> paragraph 3 were not accurate, consensus driven solutions would be
>>>> possible (again not sure those two things are connected) but then
>>>> you go on to say in 5 that conclusions in
>>>> 3 are a foregone conclusion (thus obviating any perceivable need for
>>>> paragraph 4).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m sure other thoughts will come to me as we dig in to either this
>>>> version or an amended version, but these were the issues that jumped
>>>> out at me right away.  If you could respond to the full list on this
>>>> as soon as practical, I would appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:18 PM
>>>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Recommendation for Questions #7 and #16
>>>> (Design Mark and Appropriate Balance)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> As promised, I am resubmitting a new version of my earlier recommendation.
>>>> It now addresses issues from Question #7 (Design Marks) and #16
>>>> (Appropriate Balance). I submit this recommendation to the Working
>>>> Group in my capacity as a member and not as a co-chair.
>>>>
>>>> Text below and also attached as a PDF.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Design Mark Recommendation for Working Group - for Question #7 and
>>>> Question
>>>> #16 of TMCH Charter Questions (#7, How are design marks currently
>>>> handled by the TMCH provider?; and #16, Does the scope of the TMCH
>>>> and the protections mechanisms which flow from it reflect the
>>>> appropriate balance between the rights of trademark holders and the
>>>> rights of non-trademark registrants?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We (the RPM Working Group) have found a problem:
>>>>
>>>> 1.      We have learned that Deloitte is accepting the words of design
>>>> marks, composite marks, figurative marks, stylized marks, mixed
>>>> marks, and any similar combination of characters and design
>>>> (collectively “design marks”).
>>>>
>>>> 2.      However, the rules adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board
>>>> expressly bar the acceptance of design marks into the TMCH Database.
>>>>
>>>> 3.      Accordingly, Deloitte is currently in breach of the rules that ICANN
>>>> adopted and must revise its practice to follow the rules adopted by
>>>> the GNSO Council and ICANN Board for TMCH operation.
>>>>
>>>> 4.      Alternatively, the Working Group by Consensus may CHANGE the rules
>>>> and present the GNSO Council and ICANN Board with an expanded set of
>>>> rules that Deloitte, or any future TMCH Provider, must follow.
>>>>
>>>> 5.      In all events, we have a BREACH SITUATION which must be remedied.
>>>> Further details, information and explanation below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Expanded Discussion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A. Expressly Outside the TMCH Rules Adopted by the GNSO Council &
>>>> ICANN Board
>>>>
>>>> The GNSO Council & ICANN Board-adopted rules (based on the STI Final
>>>> Report and IRT Recommendations) that were very clear about the type
>>>> of mark to be accepted by the Trademark Clearinghouse:
>>>>
>>>> “4.1 National or Multinational Registered Marks The TC Database
>>>> should be required to include nationally or multinationally registered “text mark”
>>>> trademarks, from all jurisdictions, (including countries where there
>>>> is no substantive review).”
>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-
>>>> en.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Further, the adopted rules themselves are very clear about the Harm
>>>> of putting design marks into the TMCH Database:
>>>>
>>>> “[Also 4.1] (The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks
>>>> because “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only
>>>> within the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a
>>>> mandate not to expand existing trademark rights.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Applicant Guidebook adopted the same requirements, as it must
>>>> and should, namely:
>>>>
>>>> “3.2:Standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse
>>>>
>>>> 3.2.1        Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all
>>>> jurisdictions”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonetheless, and in violation of the express rules adopted by the
>>>> GNSO Council and ICANN Board and placed into the Applicant
>>>> Guidebook, TMCH Provider Deloitte is accepting into the TMCH
>>>> database words and letters it has extracted from composite marks,
>>>> figurative marks, stylized marks, composite marks and mixed marks.
>>>> Deloitte is removing words and letters from designs, patterns,
>>>> special lettering and other patterns, styles, colors, and logos
>>>> which were integral to the trademark as accepted by the national or regional trademark office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> B. Harm from the Current Form
>>>>
>>>> The harm from this acceptance is that it violates the rules under
>>>> which Deloitte is allowed to operate. It creates a situation in
>>>> which Deloitte is operating under its own authority, not that of
>>>> ICANN and the ICANN Community. Such action, in violation of rules
>>>> clearly adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board and written into
>>>> the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, gives too much power to Deloitte
>>>> -- a contractor of ICANN, to make its own rules and adopt its own
>>>> protocol without regard to the scope, breadth and reach of the governing rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the type of misconduct anticipated by the GNSO Council and
>>>> ICANN Board, and why the rules demand that ICANN hold a close
>>>> relationship with the TMCH Provider by contract to allow close
>>>> oversight and correction of misinterpretation or failure to follow
>>>> the rules. (See, 3.1 in Relationship with ICANN, Special Trademark Issues Review Team Recommendations).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C. Presumption of Trademark Validity Does Not Extend to Non-Stylized
>>>> Version of the Registration Marks
>>>>
>>>> Further, words and letters within a composite marks, figurative
>>>> marks, stylized marks, and mixed marks are protected within the
>>>> scope of the designs, logos, lettering, patterns, colors, etc.
>>>> That's not a Working Group opinion, that's a legal opinion echoed through case law and UDRP decisions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In WIPO UDRP Decision Marco Rafael Sanfilippo v. Estudio Indigo, Case No.
>>>> D2012-1064, the Panel found:
>>>>
>>>> “Complainant has shown that it owns two trademark registrations in
>>>> Argentina. The Panel notes that both registrations are for “mixed”
>>>> marks, where each consists of a composition made of words and
>>>> graphic elements, such as stylized fonts, a roof of a house, etc.
>>>> See details of the registrations with drawings at section 4 above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “As explained on the INPI website, “[m] ixed (marks) are those
>>>> constituted by the combination of word elements and figurative
>>>> elements together, or of word elements in stylized manner.”
>>>> Accordingly, the protection granted by the registration of a mixed
>>>> mark is for the composition as a whole, and not for any of its
>>>> constituting elements in particular. Thus, Complainant is not correct when he asserts that it has trademark rights in the term “caba?as”
>>>> (standing alone), based on these mixed trademark registrations.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, in the US, federal courts have found that the presumption
>>>> of trademark validity provided by registration does not extend to
>>>> the non-stylized versions of the registration marks. See e.g.,
>>>>
>>>> Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Intern., Inc., 403 F.Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ill.
>>>> 2005) (registration of stylized mark didn’t extend protection to
>>>> nonstylized uses); Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 95 F.Supp.3d 350,
>>>> (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dealing with special form mark whose words were
>>>> unprotectable absent stylization), aff’d, Kelly–Brown v. Winfrey, 659 Fed.Appx. 55 (2d.
>>>>
>>>> Cir. 2016).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D. Beyond the Scope of the TMCH Protection that the GNSO Council and
>>>> ICANN Board Agreed to Provide Trademark Owners.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out in our Working Group calls, the STI
>>>> evaluations and IRT evaluations were long and hard and both groups
>>>> decided in their recommendations to protect only the word mark – the
>>>> text itself when the text was registered by itself. Neither allowed
>>>> for the extraction of a word or letters from amidst a pattern,
>>>> style, composite or mixed marks; neither created a process for doing
>>>> so; neither accorded the discretion to the TMCH Provider (now
>>>> Deloitte) to adopt any processes to handle this process independently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The STI clearly elaborated its reasoning: that extracting a word or
>>>> letters from a larger design, gives too many rights to one trademark
>>>> owner over others using the same words or letters. As clearly
>>>> elaborated in the STI Recommendations and adopted by the GNSO
>>>> Council and ICANN Board (unanimously), it would be an unfair
>>>> advantage for one trademark owner over others using the same words or letters. Specifically:
>>>>
>>>> “(The trademarks to be included in the TC are text marks because
>>>> “design marks” provide protection for letters and words only within
>>>> the context of their design or logo and the STI was under a mandate
>>>> not to expand existing trademark rights.)”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the extent that Deloitte as a TMCH Provider is operating within
>>>> its mandate, and the limits of the rules and contract imposed on it,
>>>> it may not take steps to expand existing trademark rights. The
>>>> rights, as granted by national and regional trademark offices are
>>>> rights that expressly include the patterns, special lettering and
>>>> other styles, colors, and logos that are a part of the trademark
>>>> granted by the Trademark Office and certification provided by each
>>>> Trademark Office and presented to the Trademark Clearinghouse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> II.                Breach and Correction
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Accordingly, Deloitte is in breach of the rules that ICANN adopted
>>>> and must revise its practice to go to follow the rules adopted by
>>>> the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. Deloitte’s extraction of words and
>>>> letters from patterns, special lettering, styles, colors and logos,
>>>> as outlined above, violates the rules adopted by the GNSO Council
>>>> and ICANN Board for the Trademark Clearinghouse operation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bringing Deloitte’s operation of the TMCH – and its terms and
>>>> requirements - rules does not require a consensus of the Working
>>>> Group. Rather, it is a fundamental aspect of our job as a Working
>>>> Group, as laid out by the GNSO Council in our charter, to review the
>>>> operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse in compliance with its
>>>> rules. As Deloitte is not operating in compliance with its rules in
>>>> this area, it is in breach and must come into compliance. The
>>>> excellent work of the Working Group in this area, and finding this
>>>> problem through hard work and research, should be sufficient for
>>>> ICANN Staff to act in enforcement of its contract and our rules.
>>>> Point it out clearly and directly to Deloitte, to ICANN Board and
>>>> Staff, and to the ICANN Community is one small additional step the Working Group might take.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, the Working Group by consensus may CHANGE the rules
>>>> and present to the GNSO Council and ICANN Board a new set of
>>>> standards by which Deloitte (or any future TMCH provider) may use to
>>>> accept the design and stylized marks currently barred by the rules.
>>>> But such a step would require a change to the ICANN rules under
>>>> which the Trademark Clearinghouse operate, and then acceptance by
>>>> the GNSO Council and ICANN Board. ICANN contractors do not have the
>>>> unilateral power to make their own rules or to change the rule that are given them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If
>>>> this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
>>>> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
>>>> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the
>>>> permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was
>>>> not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other
>>>> taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
>>>>
>>>> Web:
>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https:////www.wipo.int/ipday&c
>>>> =E,1,lyyWml0vIUXGtLw384hagZBDrgrhy6eL6SEVhL8h4OI2AW972NM67AFtulf1-q9
>>>> 3dGbo0kdsSshNbhmq1BOCeQLQmk5cvJDlt7nx7g,,&typo=1
>>>>
>>>> Facebook: www.facebook.com/worldipday
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.
>>>> icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb1cb6
>>>> c609e6042807af208d48c7bb9d2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7
>>>> C0%7C636287910468596475&sdata=wWLmXEHyKcM061x4%2F1Gc3fZh5LgyUh8RvMR9
>>>> zR7l2yo%3D&reserved=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 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.
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.