[gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

Brian F. Cimbolic BCimbolic at pir.org
Thu Feb 2 19:55:43 UTC 2017

Folks: I feel like we've gotten off on quite a tangent (or 10), at least in relation to the original post.  Without arguing the fundamentals of what a trademark is or what rights it bestows, is there anyone out there who thinks that the example in the blog is how the TMCH is intended to work?  Allowing this registrant/mark holder to obtain those "the.example" names seems absolutely exploitative.  To say that "any system can be gamed, so why bother fixing it" - that analysis works for any number of examples this group will come across (premium pricing of sunrise domains comes to mind) and doesn't advance the conversation constructively.  To me the question is, is this exploitation something that we should look at fixing or addressing within this group?   


Brian Cimbolic
Deputy General Counsel, Public Interest Registry
Office: +1 703 889-5752| Mobile: + 1 571 385-7871| 
www.pir.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube 
Confidentiality Note:  Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Reuter, Renee M
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:47 PM
To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>; gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

One trademark registration in most countries costs significantly more than $10.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 1:43 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] TMCH Blog

J. Scott (and others who replied afterwards),

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:23 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:
> The evidentiary weight of a trademark registration differs from 
> jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US, a certificate of registration 
> from the USPTO does have some proof value, that is subject to certain 
> defenses for 5 years and a lesser set of defenses should the mark 
> reach incontestable status after 5 years. I think making sweeping 
> statements like those contained in your closing paragraph are not helpful.

I was simply responding to Marc's "sweeping statement" (and assertion of "fact"), which I note you were not quick to characterize as "not helpful". It's a fact that TM registrations can be and are disputed.

Where are alleged TM rights enforced against alleged infringers?
Answer: the courts. It's in the courts where *claims*, as *evidenced* by a TM registration (but not "proven" by any means) are put to the test. That's where facts are determined. "Facts" aren't determined by a piece of paper sent to a Pakistani TM office along with $10, despite what some might have us believe.


George Kirikos
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may contain confidential and privileged information protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies from your system.

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list