[gnso-rpm-wg] List of examples for Deloitte (Re: Action items and updated documents from Working Group call of 15 February)

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Wed Feb 22 18:48:25 UTC 2017


Hello everyone,

As you continue to discuss the question of what specific information to seek from Deloitte regarding its acceptance and verification of device or image marks, I thought the following extract from the TMCH Guidelines spelling out what rules Deloitte applies might be useful to those who have less experience in this area:

“For marks that do not exclusively consist of letters, words, numerals, special characters:
The recorded name of the Trademark is an identical match to the reported name as long as the name of the Trademark includes letters, words, numerals, keyboard signs, and punctuation marks (“Characters”) that are:
•              predominant
•              clearly separable or distinguishable from the device element;
•              and all predominant characters are included in the Trademark Record submitted to the Clearinghouse in the same order they appear in the mark.

In the event that there is any doubt about the order in which the characters appear, the description provided by the Trademark office will prevail. In the event no description is provided, such Trademarks will be allocated to a Deloitte internal team of specialists with thorough knowledge of both national and regional trademark law who will conduct independent research on how the Trademark is used, e.g. check website, or they may request that the Trademark Holder or Trademark Agent provide additional documentary evidence on how the Trademark is used.”

Although the Guidelines are not specific as to word elements of a mark that are expressly disclaimed, the above may shed some light. In addition, on Greg’s point about the various types of design marks as the term is generally used, it may be helpful to note that Deloitte uses the above category as the counterpoint to the category “For marks that exclusively consist of letters, words, numerals and/or special characters”, for which the Guidelines that apply are “The recorded name of the mark is an identical match to the reported name as long as all characters are included in the Trademark Record provided to the Clearinghouse, and in the same order in which they appear on the Trademark certificate”.

Cheers
Mary

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Scott Austin <SAustin at vlplawgroup.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 13:09
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>
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 to comments of Greg and J. Scott

-------- Original Message --------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2017, 12:00 PM
To: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>
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)
A few observations:

Rebecca's examples do not include the registration information that would normally be submitted to the TMCH.  It would probably be more helpful to include that, or at least ask how that's taken into account in the overall process.

I'm not in favor of an ICANN Working Group reverse engineering all or any part of the TMCH database, which would be counter to the restrictions on availability of TMCH data as specified by ICANN.

I think it would be more fruitful to ask for the reasons why the TMCH accepted certain "design marks" and rejected others.

We should also find out whether and how disclaimers are taken into consideration.  The last mark on Rebecca's list can be used for that -- the CARS Plus Design mark was registered for clothing (by Disney) without a disclaimer.

I share the concerns brought up by J Scott, Lori and Brian in this thread.

Finally, I note that the term "design marks" at least as we are using it, covers a number of different concepts.

In the examples, the PARENTS mark is a stylized or "special form" mark, which is different from the word plus design marks in the other two examples.  Stylized marks consist of the word in a particular font or style but without other design elements.  Some might not consider a special form mark a design mark at all.

Word plus design marks are different, and even those may be broken down into composite marks (made up of separable elements) and others.

In any event, the bottom line should be that the TMCH does not second guess a national trademark registry with regard to validity of the mark.

I'll also observe that there still seems to be some different understandings of what we are trying to accomplish here.  That should be clarified before we proceed.

Greg




Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es<mailto:Paul at law.es>> wrote:
As George has noted there are many work-arounds to any potential issue.

However, none of the concerns I have heard weigh in favor of not asking for the information.

Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es[linkprotect.cudasvc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__law.es_-26c-3DE-2C1-2ChHlUwiyZu9xH7MHLWgsxftLrIXA8CdnPKZ57nH9Zl9EWIld7AqaMtdD-5Fclc5aPrvb-5FwyNPFbuRTet-5Fgk6DeH7OFWfO0wL0RbNhUZfR-5F3OnQ9fN2z1Q-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=P_SJpXLKm7K6XVGdOZghguZOGiBa01pyY5gjRmr34XY&e=>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247<tel:+34%20933%2068%2002%2047> (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177<tel:+44%207531%20400177> (UK)
Tel. +1.415.937.0846<tel:(415)%20937-0846> (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810<tel:+34%20933%2096%2008%2010>
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450<tel:(415)%20358-4450>
Skype: Prk-Spain
email:  Paul at law.es<mailto:Paul at law.es>

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE


From: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
Cc: Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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)

Exactly

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>> wrote:
Paul,

Before J Scott weighs in, I would imagine that any disclosure of any registrations would be a violation of confidentiality between the Clearinghouse and the Registrant.  It’s been a while since I have personally registered anything in the TMCH but my understanding is that there is a promise of nondisclosure except in instances where claims notices would be generated to potential registrants of conflicting names.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408<tel:(202)%20704-0408>, Skype: lsschulman

<image001.jpg>

From:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 4:58 PM
To: J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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)

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<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM
To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>
Cc: Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>, Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:10 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:23
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_TZ3DAw&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=4dcIVxmIJ4HlzlSKtVi5CxkmhgsiM0-Ie3QqDYSqZVg&e=>

·         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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q53DAw&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=O6BjjxFMpnAcCtvqJnxAG3FproCyiuVw81rRuWywMZc&e=>.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 18:37
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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)[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_TZ3DAw-29&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=KSKcSWqXKHfrYhhc1Tb84F7t6RHPfWt_9pzbTUtTREQ&e=>. 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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q53DAw&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=O6BjjxFMpnAcCtvqJnxAG3FproCyiuVw81rRuWywMZc&e=>.


·         [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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Q53DAw&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=O6BjjxFMpnAcCtvqJnxAG3FproCyiuVw81rRuWywMZc&e=>.

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<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:08
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FpHRAw&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=syumvPrqXujzoCkNCT3BOQUmXf3PYck6bCZE4kwVnVI&e=>.

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)[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FpHRAw-29&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=IOiikayD4yv9jOyS2rtGGc3KS8LFm0NTNubGgdqIABU&e=>

·         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)[linkprotect.cudasvc.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__linkprotect.cudasvc.com_url-3Fa-3Dhttp-3A__trademark-2Dclearinghouse.com_dispute-29-26c-3DE-2C1-2CdnrIupkYz6AHOv2QGrm6v4icveMRmr-2D0bfOaoOqzLMySuYuMM-5FP9BYCP3PPFjGcbDQx-2DveZkYRkOUy43lIRfCcJZ5-2DCw9iwPSutyu6B49qGjx22FBydTqoj9Tw-2C-2C-26typo-3D1&d=DwMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=8QUA0CmmAlfi4kQqoe0IIUsqKfiG8rrydBWiq2B-kSU&s=srgrXt7IZfAASKdeId12W_DlChfI0_spIsmWzAUjT7w&e=>.

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<mailto: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<tel:(404)%20815-6500>, 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<mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170222/1b00482a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list