[gnso-rpm-wg] Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Thu Apr 27 12:58:51 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3,
Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all
Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group call held
on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on
agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/NtHRAw
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-27apr17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p8ykginjlpq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=270a392f7eacd741
b08abf3f2654f84519ad6e8cf34f5cf5e6c5e8497ddb0bc4>
https://participate.icann.org/p8ykginjlpq/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 27 April 2017:
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms
(RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 03:00
UTC for 90 minute duration
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_N
tHRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
NtHRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC
IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJl
E&s=aWeu0PZUkvlPCDTVl5G7FQ2ZNYdDW-OSQYKiuuMFGBs&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=aW
eu0PZUkvlPCDTVl5G7FQ2ZNYdDW-OSQYKiuuMFGBs&e=
Jeff Neuman:Small crowd :) I am not yet on audio
Amr Elsadr:Hi Terri. Not on audio yet.
Amr Elsadr:Hi Jeff.
Jeff Neuman:Hi Amr....hoping you like your new gig :)
Amr Elsadr:No complaints so far. :-)
Amr Elsadr:Thanks.
Jeff Neuman:you joined a great team
Philip Corwin:Hello all
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):6am here
George Kirikos:They're unapologetic. :-)
George Kirikos:Anyone here from Asia/Pacific?
Mary Wong:Do I count, George, since I'm there much of the time, though not
tonight? :)
George Kirikos:If Asia/Pacific doesn't show up, we should drop this time
slot.
Mary Wong:Justine is here
Steve Levy:Hello all. Hope this is a good call time for at least some of
you!
Jeff Neuman:@Mary - True, but since we have a number of proposals to
discuss, we should at least have the proponents of the proposals on here
Paul McGrady:Calls are nice. It gives us a break from our 24/7 Listserv!
George Kirikos:Plus the subteam people should be here, for #2.
George Kirikos:It looks like 1 out of those 3 are here, so far.
Mary Wong:@Jeff, Paul and Greg had said they will be on, and they are.
Michael G had said he might not, but the co-chairs had noted that it might
be possible to hold his proposal over till next week. Michael had also noted
for the co-chairs and staff that his proposal seems pretty self explanatory.
Martin Silva:Hi all
Mary Wong:Kristine from Claims Sub Team as co-chair is here
Paul McGrady:@Phil - thanks!
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I was on the Sunrise call with
Lori. We had a good discussion there as well. Those questions have been
substantially "bundled" and we're also suggesting language changes as I
recall. (If I may be so bold as to speak up for that group).
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):from #Sunrise , questions are being put in batches
(having the same idea in ech one) , collected input from sub-group members,
next call tomorrow
Brian Cimbolic:thanks, Paul - was wondering the same thing
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):can not use mic - too early
George Kirikos:Isn't the 2nd question from Greg Shatan?
George Kirikos:(I mean 2nf proposal)
George Kirikos:*2nd
Mary Wong:Yes, two proposals on Q7 - from Kathy and Greg. And two on Q8 -
from Kathy and Paul.
George Kirikos:Page 2 has Greg's.
Jeff Neuman:page 2 :)
David McAuley:isn't #2 from Greg
George Kirikos:Page 2.
Amr Elsadr:Greg's proposal is on page 2. Rationale for all proposals are
in a seperate table starting on page 3.
Paul McGrady:My only objection to this late night call, is that due to
unforseen circumstances I don't also have an unreasonably early morning time
ICANN call tomorrow. Poor planning on my part.
Amr Elsadr:Apologies, rationale for proposals start on page 7.
Mary Wong:@Paul, we can fix that :)
Paul McGrady:@Mary: ha!
Jeff Neuman:@Paul - I wish i could say the same :)
Paul McGrady:@Jeff - you are just better at this than me.
Jeff Neuman:better? No, more of a glutton for punishment than you
Kathy Kleiman:I'm happy to let Greg do first
David McAuley:flip a virtual coin?
David McAuley:a bit coin?
Jeff Neuman:Alphabetical by last name (which is the same)
Mary Wong:The proposal Kathy withdrew is NOT on the table
David McAuley:Thanks Mary
Jeff Neuman:Or you can just describe the proposal without reading the
words?
George Kirikos:Expanded discussion on page 7?
George Kirikos:I was shocked that they accepted each and every one of
those examples.
Paul McGrady:Hard to understand the proposal since it lumps design marks
in with other kinds of marks. Are these proposals supposed to be limited to
design marks? Looks like it is.
Jeff Neuman:They should be posted on the wiki as opposed to redistributed
on email
Colin O'Brien:We need clarification terms.
George Kirikos:Here's Deloitte's response (starting on page 4 for the
examples):
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170414/4591dc7c/Delo
itteResponsestoFollowUpQuestions-0001.pdf
Mary Wong:@Jeff, we posted them with notes from a WG meeting, but thank
you - we will post them to the TMCH documents sub page as well.
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - so that quotes you gave address text marks and
design marks, but not stylized marks. Would be nice if your proposal
unpacked those. It is over inclusive as written.
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - your lumping in stylized marks within the quote you
gave is trying to change the rules.
Colin O'Brien:+1 Paul
Jeff Neuman:@kathy - I believe we should stay away from terms like
"breach" or "violation", etc. I think that implies a certain intent that is
most likely not there
Paul McGrady:+1 Jeff. We are not the Compliance Department. The rhetoric
in the proposal isn't helpful.
Brian Cimbolic:@Jeff +1
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):impressive
George Kirikos:Well done, Kathy.
Brian Cimbolic:"does not adhere to" something like that
Jeff Neuman:Have we asked Deloitte for an explanation as to why they are
accepting those marks and their interpretation of the rule?
George Kirikos:"is inconsistent with"
Jeff Neuman:They may believe they are operating within the rules and it is
possible there is a gray area.
Jeff Neuman:I am not saying what they are doing is necessarily consistent
or inconsistent with the rules....just trying to see if there is a gray area
or other interpretations of the rules that are possible
George Kirikos:There's a financial incentive for them to accept more than
they should -- they get more $$$ over time, if a mark is accepted.
Paul McGrady:Ther word "stylized" is not in the Applicant Guidebook.
Paul McGrady:@Mary - agree. We need to keep using the trademark
definitiions common to trademark practice. By lumping all of these
together, we are confusing the process, not helping it by creating new
language and then attempting to evaluate Deloitte's performance based on
definitions that do not exist outside of this working group.
Jeff Neuman:I agree with Mary.....we can always clarify things going
forward, but to state that what they have done in the past is inconsistent,
or a violation, or breach is not fair at this point
George Kirikos:There seems to be some noise on Greg's line?
Mary Wong:@Jeff, we have not asked specifically, but I suppose our
assumption thus far is that Deloitte was merely trying to implement what is
in the AGB.
Jeff Neuman:@mary - we probably sshould just ask them outright. There may
be something that they see that some of us do not in the wording of the AGB
(and their contract with ICANN, which they also need to follow)
Mary Wong:Maybe the basic question is, when the AGB says "word mark", does
that include stylized text marks and marks comprising a graphical element
alongside a text element?
Jeff Neuman:We could spend a long time trying to figure out intentions and
why things are being done.....but our job is to decide what we want the
rules to be on a go forward basis on this issue and clarify accordingly
Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, the AGB can't ccontradict the rules adopted by the
ICANN Community...
Mary Wong:@Jeff, that's true
Mary Wong:@Kathy, the various iterations of the AGB were developed through
community consultations and public comment, similar to the IRT and STI
recommendations.
Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I think you are making some assumptions as to what
the ICANN Community believes were the rules. But regardless, we have an
opportunity now to clarify on a going forward basis
Kathy Kleiman:I disagree Mary - implemenation can intepret but not
contradict the accepted Community policy
Kathy Kleiman:Only one set of rules went through the GNSO Council...
Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - but you are automatically jumping to the conclusion
that there is a contradiction. Giving Deloitte the benefit of the doubt,
they may not believe it contradicts and we should hear them out as to why.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, one challenge here is that neither the IRT nor STI
recommendations were made through a PDP, so they are technically not
consensus policy, but rather part of implementation of the 2007 policy
reommendations for the new gTLD program. As was the AGB.
Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff, I'm agree.
Kathy Kleiman:with you...
Kathy Kleiman:But we have tried many times to get Deloitte to explain.
Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I know. Most of them are not trademark lawyers, but
are accountants and the ones that come to ICANN meetings are not necessarily
the best ones to explain
Colin O'Brien:+1 Greg a disclaimed term should not be allowed in the TMCH
but source identifiers should be allowed.
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - the GNSO Policy didn't mention the TMCH.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue
s_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu
es_new-2Dgtlds_pdp-2Ddec05-2Dfr-2Dparta-2D08aug07.htm&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6w
rcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2E
Bk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=BJLQ5ZyAZHSTtueG-fzMGwJm2
X_McyY7gsnr_ZdIbE0&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=BJ
LQ5ZyAZHSTtueG-fzMGwJm2X_McyY7gsnr_ZdIbE0&e=
John McElwaine 2:the under representation is related to the rule on
predominant terms.
Kathy Kleiman:@Paul: STI final report
Kathy
Kleiman:https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/sti/sti-wt-recommendations-11dec09-
en.pdf
Mary Wong:@Paul, the 2007 GNSO policy recommendations basically just say
strings should not infringe existing legal rights. That's in part why the
Board requested the formation of the IRT, following which the Board
requested the GNSO to evaluate the IRT recommendations, which led to the
formation of the STI. As you noted, the PDP recommendations date from 2007.
Paul McGrady:@Phil - I don't think we can advise Deloitte to do anything.
I think we can make a policy recommendation to the GNSO Council who can then
pass it to the Board for approval; but we have no remit to engage in
quasi-compliance work vis a vis Deloitte
Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: Implementation teams don't have power to change
adopted policy rules - the Community would go ballistic if that were
happening.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, yes - that's why it's important to note that the only
GNSO policy recommendations on this date from 2007.
Mark Massey:A contract was issued that included certain terms that either
were or were not followed. Give GNSO approved 1 set of gudelines that one
shoould expect is the base purpose of the contract. unless that contract
was properly modified,not by someones comment or as an attempt to increase
the breadth of the project. A formal contract mod changes a contract.
Everything else is just talk.
Jeff Neuman:If we had more time (at that time), it would have been nice to
have done explanations in the Final STI report. It was good in recommending
certain things, but documenting the rationale for those rules from the STI
was a little lackin....and that can be a source of gray areas
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally the parties gaining sunrise rights are in
business of selling such domains
Paul McGrady:@Mary - yep. I remember it well. Kathy's point seemed to be
that the GNSO Council spoke directly on the topic of what marks go in the
TMCH, but they didn't.
Mary Wong:@Paul, @Kathy, basically there is NO GNSO consensus policy on
the TMCH.
Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: I think staff is taking sides
George Kirikos:That would be easily gamed, actually. If the "challenger"
is a partner with the bogus TM holder, the "challenger" would issue a
challenge, and the "team" still owns the domain, after going through the
challenge.
Mary Wong:@Kathy, sorry that you think so. From my perspective staff is
merely pointing out what went through a PDP consensus process and what did
not.
George Kirikos:In some jurisdictions, though, it's clear that they take a
less rigorous approach to granting those marks (even without a disclaimer),
outside "tougher" places like the USA.
John McElwaine 2:@Phil I don't believe that the disclaimer issue means that
Deloitte is violating any rules. it simply was not considered.
Greg Shatan:Are the chairs taking I don't think exploring facts is taking
sides.
Greg Shatan:I don't think a discussion of who is taking sides is going to
be productive or positive.
Greg Shatan:Drafters don't own their words....
John McElwaine 2:they would still need to be disclaimed.
Mark Massey:What was approved by GNSO COuncil and the board is the basis
for a contract. Not some ephemeral idea developedd by thpughts along the
way. That would require a contract mod
Paul McGrady:Sorry about the background noise!
Greg Shatan:Any text would need to be disclaimed.
Greg Shatan:No matter how embedded in the overall mark it is.
Greg Shatan:The Board did not approve the exact text, and we have no idea
what the Board thought it was approving.
Greg Shatan:It only "supported" the "substantive content".
Paul McGrady:Did the GNSO Council vote on the STI one way or another? If
so, can we post the motion somewhere?
Greg Shatan:The STI report should not be treated as the One True Text.
Kathy Kleiman:@Greg: Any text would need to be disclaimed - could you
clarify.
Kathy Kleiman:@All: Will you feel the same way when we get to the UDRP?
Greg Shatan:You stated that there were marks where the text was so
embedded in the design that it would not need to be disclaimed. I don
Colin O'Brien:@Kathy no.
Greg Shatan:I don't believe that's the case.
Kathy Kleiman:@Greg - still confused
Kathy Kleiman:1213.02 Composite MarksA composite mark may consist
of a word or words combined with a design or designs; it may consist solely
of words, when there are separable word elements; or it may consist solely
of separable design elements. An unregistrable component of a composite mark
is subject to disclaimer. However, if a composite mark (or portion thereof)
is unitary, an individual component of the mark (or of the unitary
portion) that would otherwise be unregistrable need not be disclaimed. See
TMEP §§1213.051213.05(g)(iv).
John McElwaine:@kathy if a mark is generic and it is in a design mark it
still must be disclaimed under USPTO rules
Paul McGrady:+1 Greg - the "Board document" is the AGB.
Kathy Kleiman:Huh?
Jeff Neuman:@john - is there a way to take that principle from the US and
come up with a global principle
David McAuley:Sort of underscores the importance of periodic reviews
Mark Massey:+1 on Periodic reviews
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - what was the purpose of that last comment? Was that
some warning about how Phase 2 affects Phase 1? If so, we need to
reconsider the arbitrary division between the two Phases...
Mary Wong:@Paul, one difference may be that the UDRP is Consensus Policy.
Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - but what we never solved in the STI was the notion of
something being descriptive in one industry, but arbitrary in other
industries and therefore registerable in TM offices and acceptable for the
TMCH.
George Kirikos:Bottom of page 3.
Mark Massey:Cotractors ALWAYS try to expand their statements of work .
It's hw they grow their business, Contractors must bewell managed.
Paul McGrady:@Mary - correct, but I don't think that was Kathy's point. I
think Kathy was saying that since folks are consenting to the IRT Report
being the final word (as opposed to the AGB) that some how the UDRP - as
consensus policy - should be treated as if it isn't the current last word on
its topic. Obviously, a troubling notion and one that tends to support the
idea that the Council should not have split this into Phases.
George Kirikos:+1 Mark
Jeff Neuman:@Mark - I think that is a gross overgeneralization.
George Kirikos:@Jeff: Verisign and Sitefinder? :-)
Mary Wong:OK Phil, staff will take that as an Action Item.
Jeff Neuman:@Paul - Can we create a glossary of these terms for this
group?
Mary Wong:@Paul, staff agrees. If it wasn't clear, our suggestion was
merely to have a consensus on the terminology.
Mark Massey:@Jeff I will be very happy to discuss this at length but this
is not the venue; after managing a number of these things, you are safe to
assume in IT rlated contracting it is axiomatic.
Greg Shatan:I think it's fair to say that a stylized mark is a word mark.
John McElwaine:@greg. completely agree
Paul McGrady:@Mary - I agree a glossary based on current definitions in
trademark law would be helpful. I don't agree that creating new
definitiions would be helpful.
Paul McGrady:+1 Greg.
Mary Wong:Staff will try to compile a glossary and see if there is
consensus on the terms included in it.
Jeff Neuman:@Mark - You are not the only one to have managed these types
of things :) But overgeneralizations and reading malintent in any actor in
this ecosystem is not (in my view) appropriate.
Mark Massey:@Jeff I never said anything about malintent!! It's just
common business practice.
Jeff Neuman:Another good term to define - "GI" or "Geographic
Indicator".....
George Kirikos:TMCH has more than just TMs, though (e.g. Article 6ter
stuff is supposed to be put into the TMCH now (or at some point)).
George Kirikos:(Article 6ter = IGO treaty 'marks')
Mary Wong:@Jeff, staff will include GI in the glossary. Thankfully, there
is a definition for it :)
Jeff Neuman:@Mary - thanks. If we can distinguish GIs from "Geographic
terms" that would be helpful as well...but for other working groups :)
Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes, and from what staff has researched there does seem
to be a distinction.
Mary Wong:Definition of GI from WIPO: "A geographical indication (GI) is a
sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess
qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function
as a GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place. In
addition, the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should
be essentially due to the place of origin. Since the qualities depend on the
geographical place of production, there is a clear link between the product
and its original place of production."
Greg Shatan:Article 6ter names absolutely do not equal marks protected by
statute or treaty.
Greg Shatan:Whether a GI is important or not, it is not a "mark."
Greg Shatan:The bathroom is also within the Trademark Office. :-)
George Kirikos:@Greg: I agree about Article 6ter. It's more of a blocking
right, but it's "close enough", in the eyes of many.
Greg Shatan:Common mistakes are still mistakes.
Jeff Neuman:+1 Paul
Greg Shatan:A separate GICH is a plausible concept, but in service of what
RPM? The TMCH is just a tool.
John McElwaine:GIs always have the option of "becoming" registered
trademarks, no?
Jeff Neuman:Since the TMCH is not a rights protection mechanism in and of
itself, the real question becomes if it is allowed in to the TMCH, what are
the rights given to the GIs once in (eg., the right to participate in claims
and/or the right to participate in Sunrise, etc)
Paul McGrady:@Mary - lots of things are protected by statute or treaty
(water, borders, etc.) but that doesn't make them trademarks. The AGB
doesn't even mention GIs.
Greg Shatan:I think we need to discuss what RPMs if any should be created
for GIs, and then come back to the Clearinghouse discussion. This puts the
cart before the horse.
Paul McGrady:@Mary - there is no international law norms on GIs. It is a
highly debated topic.
Justine Chew:+1 Greg
Jeff Neuman:@Paul - agree....It is why we call the service (the Trademark
Claims service and the Trademark Clearinghouse). It was originally called
IP Claims and the IP Clearinghouse but was changed because we really only
wanted to deal with Trademarks and not any other forms of IP
Paul McGrady:GIs aren't design marks...
Greg Shatan:@Phil :-)
Mary Wong:@Paul, thanks and yes - I was using shorthand to try to
summarize the varieties of protective regimes for GIs that currently exist.
Jeff Neuman:So, GIs may be a form of IP, but they are expressly not
"trademarks"
Greg Shatan:+1 Jeff.
Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes, unless they are protected as certification marks
under national TM laws.
Greg Shatan:Kumbaya Moment!!!
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - just like old times!
Greg Shatan:(Cue them from "The Odd Couple")
Greg Shatan:*theme*
George Kirikos:Interesting domain dispute for Champagne.co, which the
French organization lost:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_doma
ins_search_text.jsp-3Fcase-3DDCO2011-2D0026
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_amc_en_dom
ains_search_text.jsp-3Fcase-3DDCO2011-2D0026&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mS
VzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgkt
UprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=uEw-tsM2ok3htPMR4_KQ6O42BTGMHFrysc
sbS5zXC7Y&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=uE
w-tsM2ok3htPMR4_KQ6O42BTGMHFryscsbS5zXC7Y&e=
Greg Shatan:I think we need to shine a light into the black hole and see
how these words came to be.
George Kirikos:"More fundamentally still, this Panel finds it apparent
from the WIPO Reports referred to above that the framers of the Policy did
not intend that geographical indications or protected designations of
origin should provide a basis as such for a right under paragraph 4(a)(i)
of the Policy."
George Kirikos:So, if the GI wasn't intended to be covered by the UDRP, it
shouldn't be in the TMCH, by that logic.
Rebecca L Tushnet:Jonathan, is it fair to say that one consequence of the
"not a TM" position, from your point of view, is that GIs registered as
collective/certification marks in jurisdictions like the US get (perhaps
oddly) better treatment than the same GIs protected under GI-specific
regimes? Also, you mentioned that the TM offices in some jurisdictions are
also in charge of GIs--did I get that right?
Mary Wong:If it helps, WIPO has a publication that explains the basisc of
GIs, and on Page 13 it tries to explain the similarities and differences
between TMs and GIs:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_edocs_pubdo
cs_en_geographical_952_wipo-5Fpub-5F952.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_edocs_pubd
ocs_en_geographical_952_wipo-5Fpub-5F952.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mS
VzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgkt
UprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=mKOIrgfoST_A2Mt55XG3Zs-TVuxCWJLZeM
Cgtq7zQ74&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=mK
OIrgfoST_A2Mt55XG3Zs-TVuxCWJLZeMCgtq7zQ74&e=
Jonathan Agmon:@Greg, I dont think you need a different RPM for GIs. And
if they are not marks how come they can be registered (even with the USPTO)
as trademarks?
Paul McGrady:@Kathy - I agreed with most everything you said until you
said the TMCH creates rights.
Greg Shatan:And we were doing so well....
Greg Shatan:I always thoughts "marks = trademarks".
Mary Wong:@Greg, trademarks are probably a specific type of mark, but not
all marks are TMs (to the extent that marks designate source, for instance)
Jeff Neuman:Its a complicated issue as you said
Greg Shatan:Since GIs are not trademarks they should not be in the same
RPMs as trademarks. The fact that there's a Venn diagram where
certification marks overlap with GIs does not make all GIs trademarks. If a
particular GI functions as a certification mark, then it is also a
trademark.
Jonathan Agmon:@Greg - I thinks "marks" are wider - they dont have the
word "trade" next to the word "mark" :)
Greg Shatan:Okay, it includes service marks as well.
Jeff Neuman:Other terms for the Glossary: i) mark, ii) trademark or
service mark
Mary Wong:@Jonathan, yes, that's what I was speaking to.
John McElwaine:and for the glossary... certification marks and collective
marks
Mary Wong:Additionally (building on the WIPO note I mentioned above) there
is an obligation under WTO/TRIPS for member states to protect GIs: "In
respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the legal means
for interested parties to prevent:(a) the use of any means in the
designation or presentation of a good that indicates or suggests that the
good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place
of origin in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical
origin of the good; (b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair
competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention
(1967)."
Paul McGrady:Champaign is a town in Illinois
Jeff Neuman:@George - way too complicated......
Jeff Neuman:Geo-targeting is a hugely imperfect science
Paul McGrady:Champaign in the home of the University of Illinois.
John McElwaine:@paul. how is there sparkling wine?
Jeff Neuman:The less complicated thing would be for the TMCH to serve up a
different notice for GIs vs. Trademarks
Jeff Neuman:since registrars pull the notice from the TMCH
Jonathan Agmon:@Paul, but you have to associate the indication of origin
with certain goods or services for the "trademark" funtion to kick in - I
would think (but not sure) that Champaign is not associated with educational
services?
Jeff Neuman:(I am not advocating that by the way)
David McAuley: Paul's proposal addresses sui generis protection for GIs by
suggesting another forum, no?
George Kirikos:@Jeff: even easier is to eliminate the TMCH, but have the
registrar post a link to the national TM databases, to let the registrant do
their own searches.
Mary Wong:@David, I believe so - in the sense that Paul's proposal doesn't
say don't protect GIs at all, just investigate if there is a parallel avenue
to do so, if warranted.
George Kirikos:WIPO keeps a list of TM offices.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_directory_e
n_urls.jsp
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_directory_
en_urls.jsp&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXA
vSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y
3NMJlE&s=dcpHr82qEbWkQeFrNkXGyPdAuuSGrzYd08xqCm8B4Ac&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=fgktUprWQ1R8zNpEFV0h06NgM9kkDrNmO0g4y3NMJlE&s=dc
pHr82qEbWkQeFrNkXGyPdAuuSGrzYd08xqCm8B4Ac&e= (just have registrars link to
this, and be done)
David McAuley:Thast is how I read it also Mary, thanks
Greg Shatan:Putting GIs in the TMCH would be taking a position.
Mary Wong:@Jonathan, yes, that is so (re practices outside the US).
Greg Shatan:If a GI meets the criteria for being a Certification Mark,
then it can be registered in the USPTO.
David McAuley:Interesting points, thanks Jonathan
Jeff Neuman:Another term for the glossary: "Certification Mark"
George Kirikos:Do we need to resubmit the questions we already submitted?
(e.g. 500 top terms, buckets for the number of marks per organization, etc?)
Paul McGrady:@John M - how dare you accuse me of folding laundry while on
this call!
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Was there a no laundry rule?
How about dishes?
Paul McGrady:@Kristine - Ha!
Kathy Kleiman::-)
George Kirikos:Thanks Mary.
Jeff Neuman:Are we meeting the week of the GDD Summit?
Terri Agnew:the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all
gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 03 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC
for 90 minute duration
George Kirikos:And we'll be getting the agendas on Fridays now. Wow.
George Kirikos:Goodnight, folks!
Steve Levy:Ciao all
David McAuley:interesting discussion tonight, thanks all
Paul McGrady:Great call Phil!
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all
Colin O'Brien:good night sleep tight!
Kathy Kleiman:Good night, All
Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks, g'night.
Greg Shatan:Good night all. Good call.
Jonathan Agmon:Thanks
Kathy Kleiman:and good morning
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170427/69dd5b7b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance RPM Member 27 April 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 333376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170427/69dd5b7b/attendanceRPMMember27April2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170427/69dd5b7b/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list