[gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Wed Feb 22 15:57:37 UTC 2017
J. Scott,
I see no reason why we cannot ask for this information. It is a discreet
set of data points that is of material importance.
Can you please provide an explanation for your opposition?
Paul
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
Cc: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>, Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items
and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)
> I am not in favor of asking the TMCH to disclose any marks that are
> registered. I am not opposed to asking the TMCH if there are marks
> fundamentally similar to our examples that registered.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 22, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
>
>> Then I s suggest we do both?
>>
>> Send the examples AND ask for the list.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> From: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 2:00 PM
>> To: "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <jsevans at adobe.com>, Paul Keating
>> <paul at law.es>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items
>> and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> From: J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 5:48 AM
>>> To: Paul Keating; Mary Wong
>>> Reply To: J. Scott Evans
>>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items
>>> and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)
>>>
>>> Team:
>>>
>>> I disagree with Paul. I think asking Deloitte to tell us if the textual
>>> elements of Rebecca’s examples and for an explanation of their analysis
>>> would be very enlightening and helpful.
>>>
>>> J. Scott Evans
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating
>>> <paul at law.es>
>>> Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:10 AM
>>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items
>>> and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While a laudable effort imho this will not likely receive a useful response.
>>> It might be more productive to simply request a list of those
>>>
>>> Figurative marks that have been accepted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alternatively ask what rules are applied in practice to determine the
>>> "prominent" textual aspects of a figurative mark.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue I feel is not the figurative containing textual elements otherwise
>>> registrable. Rather we are really after a figurative mark used to protect a
>>> textual element not otherwise protectable as a trademark. E.g. "Fast Cars"
>>> with a green squiggly mark to claim rights in fast cars to sell automobiles.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Paul Keating, Esq.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I’m sending this message on behalf of Rebecca Tushnet in relation to one
>>>> Action Item from the 15 February Working Group call. This was for her to
>>>> take the lead in suggesting some examples of design marks that we can send
>>>> to Deloitte for their opinion on whether the examples will or will not
>>>> likely be accepted into the TMCH.
>>>>
>>>> Please review the attached examples and send your comments to this list.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>> Date: Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:23
>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Action items and updated documents from Working Group call of
>>>> 15 February
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> This is just a gentle reminder to circulate your suggestions this week for
>>>> follow up questions and clarifications for Deloitte, based on the Working
>>>> Group’s discussions to date of the tables for Categories 1 – 6.
>>>>
>>>> To assist those who were not able to attend both sessions where the tables
>>>> were discussed:
>>>> · Wiki page containing call recording, transcript and updated table
>>>> from 15 February (discussion of Categories 3 – 6):
>>>> https://community.icann.org/x/TZ3DAw
>>>>
>>>> · Wiki page containing call recording, transcript, AC chat, updated
>>>> table from 8 February (last discussion of Categories 1 -2), and compilation
>>>> of TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/x/Q53DAw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>> Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 18:37
>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Action items and updated documents from Working Group call of 15
>>>> February
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached the updated Tabular Summary for Categories 3-6 for
>>>> your review (also posted to the Working Group wiki page with notes and
>>>> recordings for this call, at https://community.icann.org/x/TZ3DAw). Please
>>>> also note the following action items, which are also reflected in the
>>>> updated table.
>>>>
>>>> Action Items:
>>>>
>>>> · On Q7 (design marks) – Rebecca Tushnet to take the lead in
>>>> developing a few examples of hypothetical design marks for sending to
>>>> Deloitte for their views
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · On Q8 (Geographical Indicators) – Staff to confirm with OriGIn who
>>>> may be able to submit G.I.s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · On Q9 (TM+50) – Working Group to review questions submitted by the
>>>> Registries Stakeholder Group with a view toward agreement on whether to
>>>> send them on to Deloitte
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · On Q14 (Accessibility) – Working Group to consider if there are
>>>> additional/alternative sources that can provide us with more information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · [From last week] – please review the updated Tabular Summary for
>>>> Categories 1 & 2 from last week and submit any follow up questions or
>>>> suggestions for Deloitte to this mailing list. The updated document is
>>>> available under Follow Up Notes from the wiki page notes of the call last
>>>> week: https://community.icann.org/x/Q53DAw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> · [From last week] – please review the TMCH Dispute Resolution
>>>> Procedures and suggest areas for discussion or follow up to this mailing
>>>> list. The updated document is available under Follow Up Notes from the wiki
>>>> page notes of the call last week: https://community.icann.org/x/Q53DAw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next Steps:
>>>>
>>>> · Staff will compile additional suggestions received from Working
>>>> Group members on possible questions and requests for follow up with
>>>> Deloitte, from both Tabular Summaries for Categories 1 & 2 (from last week)
>>>> and for Categories 3-6. Please try to submit your feedback by close of
>>>> business in your time zone on Tuesday 21 February at the latest so that we
>>>> can have a full list ready as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:08
>>>> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Proposed agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 15
>>>> February
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> The proposed agenda for the next Working Group call, scheduled for 15
>>>> February 2017 at 1700 UTC, is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to
>>>> Statements of Interest
>>>>
>>>> 2. Review table for Categories 3-6, with view to developing additional
>>>> questions for Deloitte or that require further information
>>>>
>>>> 3. Next steps/next meeting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that the table for Agenda Item #2 had been circulated
>>>> previously, on 6 February, and is also available on our Working Group wiki
>>>> space here: https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw.
>>>>
>>>> Please note also the Action Items from the meeting last week, which were as
>>>> follows:
>>>>
>>>> · Over the next week, WG members to review the table for Categories
>>>> 1 & 2 and the discussions to date, in order for staff to compile and send
>>>> all follow up questions to Deloitte before ICANN58 so as to have an
>>>> informed discussion with them at ICANN58 (updated table was circulated on
>>>> 10 February and is also available here:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/x/_pHRAw)
>>>>
>>>> · WG members to also review the TMCH Dispute Resolution Procedures
>>>> and agree on any follow up questions for Deloitte (the Procedures were
>>>> circulated on 10 February and are also available here:
>>>> http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <List of marks to ask Deloitte about - from Rebecca Tushnet - 22 Feb
>>>> 2017.docx>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170222/0d67d394/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list