[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week

Sat Apr 29 13:36:18 UTC 2017

Perhaps but it's existence and use present very powerful mechanisms that are applied to grant trademark holders an unprecedented preemptive right to register domain names based upon the database notwithstanding and without regard to any limitations inherent in the trademark at issue.  Such a right has no basis in any law. 

The program was created for a purpose. My position is That it is not fit for purpose. I believe 
     it is being abused and have asked for openness in the database to determine if that belief is supported. 
     It is not an appropriate balanced approach to the problem
     Other less intrusive solutions to the problem now exist or can be created. 

I am in favor of exploring this.   The opposition seems bent on resistance because they do y want to give up the benefit of the TMCH even though not legally supportable. 

Sincerely,
Paul Keating, Esq

> On Apr 29, 2017, at 2:57 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> A common misconception. The TMCH is a database. Nothing more. It is a database used to facilitate two RPM's: Sunrise and TM Claims.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 29, 2017, at 5:28 AM, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Jonathan:
>>  
>> Taking each in turn:
>>  
>> 1.        Take a look at the About section of the TMCH. This is what they write. http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/what-trademark-clearinghouse
>>  
>> Marketing materials do not override community consensus.  The long and detailed work beginning with the IRT, through the STI, to the Board, and finally in the AGB make it clear that the TMCH is a database, not an RPM.  I can compile my trademarks in a database all day and it won’t do squat on its own.  If it could do something on its own, the publicly accessible USPTO database would have been sufficient and we would not have built the TMCH in the first place.
>>  
>> 2.       And I disagree that the TMCH has to do with carefully selected trademarks. That's not correct either. 
>>  
>> Well, my clients carefully selected what they put in there.  It wasn’t cheap.  Perhaps you work with clients who weren’t careful about what they lodged.  Perhaps I misspoke.  If you have any good leads on clients with enough money to lodge trademarks in the TMCH with wild abandon, please pass them along!
>>  
>> 3.       And the word nothing more is also incorrect. 
>>  
>> How so?  What else is the TMCH doing except accepting and validating trademarks (carefully or indiscriminately, depending on the client base) lodged by their owners  and providing that data when the actual RPMs (Sunrise and Claims) require the data?
>>  
>> Best,
>> Paul
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Jonathan Agmon [mailto:jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal] 
>> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 7:06 AM
>> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>; Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>; icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>
>> Cc: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>; claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week
>>  
>> Take a look at the About section of the TMCH. This is what they write. http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/content/what-trademark-clearinghouse
>>  
>>  
>> And I disagree that the TMCH has to do with carefully selected trademarks. That's not correct either. 
>>  
>> And the word nothing more is also incorrect. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> <image001.png>
>> Jonathan Agmon (胡韩森)
>> 
>> Advocate, Director
>> 
>> Attorney and Counsellor at Law (admitted in New York)
>> 
>> jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>> www.ip-law.legal
>> T SG +65 6532 2577 
>> T US +1 212 999 6180          
>> T IL +972 9 950 7000           
>> F IL +972 9 950 5500           
>> Soroker Agmon Nordman Pte Ltd.
>> 
>> 133 New Bridge Road, #13-02, 059413 SINGAPORE
>> 
>> 8 Hahoshlim Street P.O. Box 12425 4672408 Herzliya, ISRAEL
>> 
>> This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: icannlists at winston.com
>> Sent: 29 April 2017 19:51
>> To: paul at law.es; jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal
>> Cc: icannlists at winston.com; ipcdigangi at gmail.com; mary.wong at icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week
>>  
>> I have to agree with Paul K. here.  The TMCH is not a rights protection mechanism.  It is a database containing carefully selected trademark records as lodged by their owners.  Nothing more.
>>  
>> Best,
>> Paul
>>  
>>  
>> From: Paul Keating [mailto:paul at law.es] 
>> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2017 4:35 AM
>> To: Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal>
>> Cc: icannlists <icannlists at winston.com>; claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Working Group call this week
>>  
>> Jonathan wrote:  
>>  
>> "Since the TMCH is a very important protection rights protection mechanism, available to brand owners, and in most countries of the world, the general view is that GIs are a type of trademarks, I make the following alternative proposal:"
>>  
>>  
>> Prk comment.     
>>  
>> Not to pester a point but when we were arguing to make the TMCH public Or as an alternative to allow this WG to access certain parts of it we were told the opposite. 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>> 
>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Jonathan Agmon <jonathan.agmon at ip-law.legal> wrote:
>> 
>> Since the TMCH is a very important protection rights protection mechanism, available to brand owners, and in most countries of the world, the general view is that GIs are a type of trademarks, I make the following alternative proposal:
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> ************************************************************************************ 
>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by 
>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. 
>> ************************************************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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%7C27f665f777e1408cbb8408d48efb4902%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636290657292740112&sdata=ysWUnVqcnwsNfGUvBWjUjOxjdlo9HhVe%2F5qypMkIloo%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170429/7a8ce7a6/attachment-0001.html>